TURUN YLIOPISTON JULKAISUJA

ANNALES UNIVERSITATIS TURKUENSIS

SARJA - SER. B OSA - TOM. 312

HUMANIORA

KYMITTÆ
Sites, centrality and
long-term settlement change
in the Kemiönsaari region
in SW Finland

by

HENRIK ASPLUND

Appendix 1:
The sites

Appendix 2:
The palaeoecological study of three mires
on the island Kemiönsaari, SW Finland
by Teija Alenius

TURUN YLIOPISTO
Turku 2008
Maps and pictures by the author if not referenced otherwise.
Digital map elements used according to the copyright of the
National Land Survey of Finland, license number MYY/11/05.

Language revision by Colette Gattoni

Layout and prepress by Lehtipaja / Raija Herrala-Nurmi.
Cover design by Lehtipaja / Merja Koponen.

ISBN 978-951-29-3627-4 (PRINT)

ISBN 978-951-29-3628-1 (PDF)
ISSN 0082-6987
Painosalama Oy – Turku, Finland 2008
Till mina föräldrar
och min familj
Contents

Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................9
1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................11
1.1. A problem of the Iron Age archipelago and mainland..........................................11
1.2. The study area.............................................................................................................15
1.3. A short history of research of Kemiönsaari.............................................................17
1.4. Sites and centrality......................................................................................................18
1.5. The long-term perspective.........................................................................................26
1.6. Palynology – a comparative analysis.......................................................................27
2. Settlement and environment..............................................................................................29
2.1. What is settlement archaeology?..............................................................................29
2.2. Some concepts.............................................................................................................31
2.2.1. Areas and chronology..........................................................................................31
2.2.2. Settlement units....................................................................................................33
2.3. Environmental history and settlement archaeology in SW Finland....................38
2.3.1. Historical background in brief............................................................................38
2.3.2. Changing environment – changing society......................................................39
2.3.3. From village into town........................................................................................42
2.4. Environment and behaviour.....................................................................................44
2.4.1. Man and nature.....................................................................................................44
2.4.2. Archaeologies of space and place.......................................................................45
3. Archaeological material in a changing landscape...........................................................49
3.1. Stone Age material of the study area.......................................................................49
3.2. The Stone Age material of Kemiönsaari..................................................................52
3.2.1. Pioneers in the archipelago.................................................................................52
3.2.2. The Subneolithic...................................................................................................56
3.2.3. The Battle Axe Culture.........................................................................................58
3.2.4. The Kiukainen Culture........................................................................................63
3.3. The Bronze Age transformation of landscapes.......................................................67
3.3.1. The general setting...............................................................................................67
3.3.2. Cairns.....................................................................................................................71
3.3.3. Graves or not?.......................................................................................................77
3.3.4. Cairn size...............................................................................................................80
3.3.5. The cairn in the landscape...................................................................................82
3.3.6. Bronze Age settlement sites................................................................................88
3.4. The Pre-Roman Iron Age...........................................................................................92
3.4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................92
3.4.2. Pre-Roman sites of Kemiönsaari........................................................................93
3.4.2.1. Tappo...............................................................................................................93
3.4.2.2. Makila..............................................................................................................99
3.4.3. Pre-Roman mainland sites................................................................................101
3.4.3.1. Piikkiö............................................................................................................101
3.4.3.2. Sauvo.............................................................................................................102
3.4.3.3. Paimio............................................................................................................103

5
 3.4.3.4. Halikko, Salo and Pertteli...........................................................................108
3.4.3.5. Muurla and Perniö.......................................................................................109
3.4.4. Early Metal Period hill-sites..............................................................................111
3.4.4.1. Fortifications or something else?...............................................................111
3.4.4.2. Piikkiö, Paimio and Sauvo..........................................................................116
3.4.4.3. Halikko, Salo, Pertteli and Muurla............................................................119
3.4.4.4. The archipelago area...................................................................................122
3.4.5. Continuity or change?........................................................................................124
3.5. Iron Age material in the Kemiönsaari archipelago..............................................125
3.5.1. Stray finds and cairns.........................................................................................125
3.5.2. The Kyrksundet trading site.............................................................................130
3.5.3. Excavations in Makila........................................................................................133
3.6. Other Iron Age archipelago finds – a comparison...............................................140
3.6.1. Stray finds............................................................................................................140
3.6.2. Late Iron Age axes..............................................................................................141
3.6.3. Temporary shelters.............................................................................................143
3.6.4. Viking Age – a period of activity in the archipelago?...................................145
3.7. The Iron Age on the mainland................................................................................148
3.7.1. Cemeteries, settlement sites and stray finds...................................................148
3.7.2. Settlement development....................................................................................158
3.8. The Early Iron Age transition – a problem of discontinuity...............................162
4. Environmental studies and osteology............................................................................165
4.1. Shoreline displacement effects................................................................................165
4.2. Agrogeological considerations................................................................................174
4.3. Palynology..................................................................................................................187
4.3.1. The archipelago...................................................................................................187
4.3.2. A comparison with the mainland.....................................................................193
4.4. Osteological analyses................................................................................................196
5. Early Iron Age archaeology in brief – a review with comments.................................201
5.1. Introduction...............................................................................................................201
5.1.1. From the Hackman paradigm to a theory of settlement continuity...........201
5.1.2. Chronologies.......................................................................................................202
5.2. Bronze Age and Early Iron Age coastal pottery types.........................................204
5.2.1. Local ceramics.....................................................................................................204
5.2.2. Foreign influences..............................................................................................208
5.2.3. Morby Ware.........................................................................................................210
5.2.3.1. Towards a definition....................................................................................210
5.2.3.2. The Lusatian culture and the Baltic...........................................................213
5.2.3.3. Morby Ware and Lusatian culture influence...........................................216
5.2.3.4. Radiocarbon dates and contact dates........................................................218
5.2.3.5. Morby-related ceramics in Estonia and Latvia........................................225
5.2.3.6. Morby-related ceramics in Sweden...........................................................228
5.3. Other material culture aspects................................................................................231
5.3.1. Pre-Roman bronze finds....................................................................................231
5.3.2. Early iron objects and iron production – Scandinavia and the East Baltic .....235

6
 5.3.3. Early iron technology in Finland......................................................................238
5.3.4. Iron objects..........................................................................................................241
5.3.5. More on Early Iron Age axes – including a closer look at cuneiform axes ... 245
5.3.6. Other artefacts.....................................................................................................250
5.4. Main site types...........................................................................................................255
5.4.1. Cairns...................................................................................................................255
5.4.2. Late Pre-Roman and Roman Period cemeteries – an issue of identity? ......  257
5.4.3. Pit-shaped hearths..............................................................................................261
5.4.4. Building remains................................................................................................262
5.5. Climate and environment........................................................................................272
5.5.1. An ecotonal shift?...............................................................................................272
5.5.2. Environmental proxy data: some examples and problems..........................275
5.6. Food production........................................................................................................281
5.6.1. The development in the East Baltic area.........................................................281
5.6.1.1. Long-term background...............................................................................281
5.6.1.2. Field systems................................................................................................284
5.6.1.3. Domestication...............................................................................................285
5.6.1.4. The "second landnam" in northern Estonia.............................................288
5.6.2. Food production in a long-term perspective in Finland...............................290
5.6.2.1. Stone Age agriculture and domestication................................................290
5.6.2.2. Late Neolithic and Bronze Age breakthrough.........................................292
5.6.2.3. Early Iron Age agriculture and domestication........................................294
5.6.2.4. Palaeoethnobotany – some general lines..................................................296
5.7. The Early Iron Age turning point – a summary...................................................299
6. Iron Age settlement development – a discussion..........................................................307
6.1. From individuals to society.....................................................................................307
6.2. Palaeodemography...................................................................................................308
6.2.1. An Estonian example.........................................................................................308
6.2.2. Iron Age population in Finland........................................................................309
6.2.3. The population of the study area.....................................................................311
6.2.4. Individuals and settlement units......................................................................317
6.3. The problem of aggregation....................................................................................319
6.3.1. The general idea..................................................................................................319
6.3.2. Villages and territories.......................................................................................322
6.3.3. The Estonian vakus.............................................................................................328
6.3.4. Territory, pitäjä and parish.................................................................................331
6.3.5. To stay or to move?.............................................................................................340
6.4. Centrality and hierarchy..........................................................................................343
6.4.1. Settlement hierarchy in Estonia – a review.....................................................343
6.4.2. Territories and polities.......................................................................................345
6.5. Risks, inequality and power....................................................................................348
6.5.1. The handling of risks.........................................................................................348
6.5.2. Taxation................................................................................................................350
6.5.3. Social inequality and heterogeneity.................................................................353
6.5.4. The totalistic approach to power and inequality...........................................355

7
 6.5.5. Power in Finnish archaeology..........................................................................359
6.5.6. Aggression...........................................................................................................362
6.6. The Late Iron Age – towards a new change..........................................................365
6.6.1. Iron Age continuity............................................................................................365
6.6.2. Settlement development of the archipelago...................................................366
6.6.3. The problem of Iron Age cairns in the archipelago.......................................369
6.6.4. Settlement expansion.........................................................................................374
6.6.5. Colonization........................................................................................................377
7. Sites, centrality and long-term settlement change - some conclusions......................383
7.1. Landscapes and archaeological sites......................................................................383
7.2. Power and centrality.................................................................................................385
7.3. The power of nature versus the nature of power.................................................387

Abbreviations.........................................................................................................................391
References...............................................................................................................................392
Unpublished sources.......................................................................................................392
Literature...........................................................................................................................392
Field reports according to municipality.......................................................................435

Appendix 1: The sites............................................................................................................451

Appendix 2: The palaeoecological study of three mires on the island
Kemiönsaari, SW Finland.............................................................................  565

8
Acknowledgements

The prehistory of this study goes back to the year 1983, when I (still a student at
that time) was asked to lecture a basic course in archaeology at the Adult Education
Institute in Dragsfjärd. After saying yes, I looked up Dragsfjärd on a map and
noticed that this was a municipality situated on a big island called Kemiönsaari (Sw.
Kimitoön). Although the names were slightly familiar and I had some previous idea
of what Kemiönsaari was, I have no memory of visiting the area before. During the
following years the visits increased as courses in archaeology and small fieldwork
projects went on. The cooperation with local amateur archaeologists proved to be
fruitful. Due to the efforts of local enthusiasts parts of the prehistory of the island
could be rewritten. So many people were involved that it is not possible to name
them all, but a big thanks goes to all of them. Two names I will mention: Hans
Myhrman in Dragsfjärd, an extremely skilled surveyor responsible for locating
tens of previously unknown sites, and Ernst Lindroos in Kemiö, a primus motor
and co-organizer of fieldwork and other activities.
Parts of this book are based on materials and methods I could not have mastered
myself, like the pollen data and analyses presented. The first efforts in the field
of palynology were made as early as the 1980’s together with palynologist Irmeli
Vuorela. The sites presented in detail in Appendix 2 of this book were analysed by
palynologist Teija Alenius. I am thankful for having the opportunity of co-working
with both. I am also grateful for the help given by other scientists, like Tarja
Formisto and Pirkko Ukkonen for their osteological analyses, as well as biologist
Ilpo Haahtela, botanist Terttu Lempiäinen and archaeo-osteologist Auli Tourunen
for their analyses concerning materials within their specific area of knowledge.
The study has been supervised by Professor Jussi-Pekka Taavitsainen at the
University of Turku. In addition to his remarks I have had the benefit of receiving
comments on the predecessor of this book – my Lic. Phil. thesis – by Docent Eljas
Orrman and Docent Markus Hiekkanen. Especially the detailed comments and
critique given by Professor Valter Lang of the University of Tartu, who acted
as opponent of the Lic. Phil. thesis, proved to be very helpful. In the process of
finalizing the manuscript the additional help offered by Dr. Sirkku Pihlman has
been essential.
Several colleagues have helped with putting small pieces of information in place.
Especially I would like to thank Professor Andrejs Vasks at the University of Latvia
for his help concerning the Latvian cuneiform axes. I would also like to thank my
present and former co-workers at the University of Turku, several of which have
contributed to this study in one way or another. The same goes for colleagues and
friends both in Finland and abroad who have kindly offered their assistance when

9
needed. I have received many influences and ideas from my teachers, starting
with the very first years as an student of archaeology. Warm thoughts go to all of
them. Particularly I want to mention Professor Emeritus Unto Salo and the former
assistant of the department, Docent Jukka Luoto. Together with Luoto I had the
opportunity to conduct my first fieldwork in the municipalities of Piikkiö and
Paimio in the 1980’s, thus becoming acquainted with areas later to be included in
this study.
The transformation of the manuscript into this book was done with the kind
assistance of Raija Herrala-Nurmi who worked out the layout. I also had the
benefit of having a skilled editor in the family, Sari Mäntylä, who did much of the
proof-reading. The revision of the English text was done by Colette Gattoni of Åbo
Akademi University.
Over the years archaeological and palynological research related to Kemiönsaari
has been financially supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation, Föreningen
Konstsamfundet, the Jenny and Antti Wihuri Foundation, the Kommerserådet
Otto A. Malms donationsfond, the Nordenskiöld-samfundet I Finland r.f., and the
Society of Swedish Literature in Finland.

10
1. Introduction

1.1. A problem of the Iron Age archipelago and mainland

Places containing archaeological data defined as ‘sites’ and the patterning of

these constitute a common basis for settlement archaeological research. In this
study, dealing with features in the archaeological record within a study area in
southwestern Finland, key elements are sites, spatial aggregation of sites as well
as the problem of sitelessness, viewed in a context of time and environment. The
main focus is on the settlement development on a big island – Kemiönsaari (Sw.
Kimitoön), the name of which first appears in written sources in the form Kymittæ
in 1325.1
Before more comprehensive research began in the mid-1980’s the archeological
data from Kemiönsaari included Stone Age stray finds as well as a few Stone Age
settlement sites. The Bronze Age was represented by cairns and a few bronze
objects. With regard to the Iron Age, only a couple of stray finds were known from
the area and no settlement sites of the period had been found. Over the years more
Iron Age material has been revealed, but not in comparison with the surrounding
mainland areas. The amount of Iron Age remains on the island is still noticeably
small, when at the same time the amount of material related especially to the
Stone Age and (to a lesser degree) the Bronze Age has grown significantly. It is
the comparison of the archaeological data from Kemiönsaari and the nearby part
of the south-western Finnish archipelago with material from the mainland that
is the point of departure in this study. Explaining the causes for the difference
between the archipelago and mainland, particularly regarding the Iron Age, is the
main objective. Trying to reach this goal leads to a type of retrospective reasoning
that can be called reductive or (opposite to a prognosis approach) “postgnostic”
(Tabaczyński 1998: 54-55). The point is to find the (unknown) causes of phenomena
– in this case changing archaeological site patterns – which are believed to be the
(known) effects of those causes.
One aspect of the study is that of discontinuity, i.e. how to deal with discontinuities
of the archaeological record of a specific area. Within Finnish archaeology the issue

1
The document containing the name is included in a compilation of medieval texts,
Registrum Ecclesiae Aboensis. In the classic publication of the texts the name occurs in the
form “Kymittæ” (Hausen 1890: 25), as in several later works dealing with place-names
(e.g. Pipping 1918: 63; Huldén 2001: 131). This seems to be correct if compared with the
published facsimile of the Registrum Ecclesiae Aboensis (1952: 252). Due to some reason
the name has also been presented in the form “Kymmittæ” or “Kymmittae” (Pitkänen
1985: 335-336; Suistoranta 1997: 27), which is evidently incorrect.

11
of discontinuity has drawn attention especially regarding periods of the Iron Age,
the lack of archaeological data of which poses problems for archaeologists trying
to explain the settlement history of areas lacking finds. Such discussions have
concerned, for example, the Iron Age of the province of Uusimaa, the Late Iron Age
of Southern Ostrobothnia as well as that of the Åland Islands. Furthermore, Iron
Age finds and features are sparse in many parts of the interior areas of Finland as
well as northern Finland. From the perspective of Kemiönsaari, the most essential
equivalent is the archaeology and ideas of the general settlement development of
the south-western Finnish archipelago, an area where the explanation of the scarcity
of Iron Age archaeological finds is closely connected with issues of continuity and/
or discontinuity. One aim of the Kemiönsaari study is to examine how continuities
appear within one region when examined in detail, contrasting material from an
area sparse in finds with material from an area characterized by a more affluent
pattern of archaeological data.
The difference in materials from Kemiönsaari when compared with the
mainland is a problem with two main dimensions: environment and time. If we
are simply looking at the Iron Age as a specific period in time, the difference could
be reduced only to a case of separate environments, as the archipelago seems to
be sparse in finds, while clusters of Iron Age remains occur on the mainland. Time
as a factor itself becomes important when we realize that this difference is not as
obvious regarding the Stone Age or the Bronze Age – or the Historical Period.
The difference in Iron Age materials is a result of changes in time that should be
viewed in a long-term perspective. This is why the study is based on archaeological
material concerning settlement from the Stone Age to the Historical Period. The
‘material’ includes information from archives and from the literature as well as
from fieldwork within the study area. The material was collected over a long period
of time. The last fieldwork organized specifically for this study was conducted in
2002, but additions and updates have been added even after that. The list of sites
included in the study is presented in Appendix 1, which also contains references
concerning each site. A list of field reports according to municipalities has been
added after the list of literature. Included in the study (and referenced in Appendix
1) are about one hundred reported inspections, excavations etc. conducted or
supervised by the author.
Although the problem of change needs to be dealt with using a long-term
approach, the Early Iron Age is a period of special interest. Important changes in
site patterns are related in one way or another to this period. The Early Iron Age
– especially the Pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age transition – can be considered
as one important turning point in the development of southwestern Finnish
settlement. Because of the focus on this period of transition, the term ‘Early Iron

12
Age’ will refer in the following to both the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman
Period. The Pre-Roman Iron Age is, however, in several aspects a continuation of
the Bronze Age. Pre-Roman settlement sites still look a little like those of the Stone
Age or the Bronze Age, and cairns were built in a fashion somewhat similar to that
of the preceding period. Excavations in the area of Turku, rather close to the present
study area, have in fact indicated site continuity from the Late Neolithic or Early
Bronze Age Kiukainen Culture to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Asplund 1997a; 1997b:
251-252). In these cases people actually lived on the same spot during the Early
Iron Age as during earlier periods. Some degree of connection between the location
of Bronze Age and Pre-Roman settlement can be noted also elsewhere, although
not always that clearly. In the Turku area the particularly obvious long-term site
continuity may have been the result of a stable period of local development due to
a topography where shore-displacement did not lead to significant changes of the
landscape during a long period of time (Pukkila 2005).
In evaluating settlement development in the archipelago area, it is interesting
that Pre-Roman sites have also been found on the island of Kemiönsaari. These sites
are of special importance for this study. They have probably not been utilized during
preceding periods, but at least one can speak of an areal continuity of settlement
on the island from the Bronze Age to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Regardless of this
continuity, however, the Early Iron Age seems to represent a period of transition.
During the following periods of the Iron Age AD, clusters of cemeteries appeared
in the big river valleys on the mainland coast, while traces of settlement in the
archipelago become sparse. The reasons for this development must have their roots
in the Early Iron Age or be due to long-term developmental factors that reached
a culmination point at this time. A common explanation is that it was changes in
subsistence strategies, especially the intensification of agriculture, which led to the
flourishing of some particular mainland areas.
As Iron Age stray finds are few and cemeteries of the types known from the
mainland are practically unknown in the archipelago, one question to ask is
whether the archipelago became deserted during the Iron Age. This question is
difficult to answer, as people might have lived in the archipelago without leaving
similar traces as on the mainland. According to one interpretation, the tradition of
building cairn graves prevailed in the archipelago when new burial customs were
introduced on the mainland. In some of the cairns in the archipelago Iron Age
artefacts have actually been found, and there are also cairns on such low elevations
that (due to changes in sea level) they cannot have been built before the Iron Age
(Tuovinen 1990a: 53-57, 61-62, 64, 67; 2000a: 25-28; 2002a; 2002b: 113-114). Other
factors that have been pointed out in support of the idea of continuous settlement
in the archipelago are the advantageous marine milieu and the diversity of natural

13
resources, along with the scanty archaeological research conducted in the area
(Tuovinen 1990a: 65-66; 2000a: 23-24; 2002a: 42, 56, 261-262). Thinking in this way,
the archipelago can be regarded as a potential zone of settlement and interaction
between different groups of people, with an environment that provided a stable
subsistence and opportunities for the exchange of goods and ideas. The reason
why this is not reflected in the archaeological material is assumed to be due mainly
to the insignificant amount of fieldwork done, as well as to the different magnitude
of recent land-use in the archipelago compared to that of the mainland.
This view has been summarized in an important work on the Bronze Age and
Iron Age of the southwestern Finnish coastal area, Tapani Tuovinen’s (2002a)
dissertation on the burial cairns of the archipelago, the main interpretations of
which will be discussed more closely in the following chapters of this book.2 The
conclusion reached by Tuovinen is that the continuation through the Iron Age of
the cairn ritual in the archipelago (while new grave rituals were introduced on
the mainland) represents a continuation in the archipelago of the inhabitation and
lifestyle of the Bronze Age, based on the versatile natural resources of the area
(including arable land). The mainland settlement developed an economy more
specialized on the raising of cattle and agriculture. Between these populations and
economic areas there may, according to Tuovinen (2002a: 275), have existed a barter
system for reducing risks due to agriculture; economic contacts may have had a
similar character as known from the Historical Period when islanders traded fish,
meat, eggs, butter and firewood with central settlement areas in exchange for grain,
salt, hemp, and iron. Furthermore, the islanders may have functioned as pilots on
ships in the waters of the archipelago difficult to navigate in; maybe this could
have increased in the 8th century when trade started to become market-based long-
distance activity (Tuovinen 2002a: 275-276).
The ideas presented by Tuovinen are convincing, in particular regarding the
existence of Iron Age cairns in the archipelago and the improbability of a lack of
habitation, but some interpretations may require further analysis. This is the case
at least concerning the basis for the interpretation of continuity. Identifying Iron
Age remains in the archipelago may not be enough, as most of the reliably dated
sites seem to represent either the very beginning or the very end of the Iron Age.
The possibility of discontinuities or changes in the intensity of activities, as well as
changes with regard to the roles and relative importance of different areas, cannot
be ruled out. It is also clear that the idea of sparse finds due to lack of investigations
is somewhat problematic, as the amount of research in the archipelago has increased

2
The title of Tuovinen’s (2002a) dissertation is “The Burial Cairns and the Landscape in
the Archipelago of Åboland, SW Finland, in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age”. The
book has been reviewed by Lavento (2003).

14
considerably during the last decades. A better argument in favour of settlement
stability in the archipelago presented by Tuovinen (2002a: 256-258) is the principle
that an area should be considered as inhabited if such a notion is not challenged
by obvious evidence. This is a sound concept and one that is very difficult to prove
wrong. In other words, using this logic, it is a proposed settlement break or other
types of changes affecting the settlement in a negative way that should be explained
and evidenced, not settlement continuity.
From whatever angle one chooses to look at the question of settlement
development in the Kemiönsaari region, it is in any case apparent that development
in the mainland river valleys must have differed from that of the islands. The
prerequisites for Iron Age settlement existed in the archipelago, but still settlement
sites, cemeteries, and most other conclusive indications of permanent settlement after
the Pre-Roman Iron Age are found on the mainland and not in the archipelago. The
differences in archaeological materials between the mainland and the archipelago
are so obvious that they must reflect a fundamental change.

1.2. The study area

The core of the study area is the island of Kemiönsaari – the third largest island
in Finland, covering a territory of 560 km2. Kemiönsaari is thus smaller than the
biggest islands in the Baltic, but comparable with, for example, Bornholm. The
location and character of Kemiönsaari is quite different from all the other big
islands. The land mass is separated from the mainland by narrow sounds, making
Kemiönsaari look like a large piece of the mainland drifting slightly away from the
coast (the reality is of course quite the opposite – land upheaval is slowly bringing
the island closer to the mainland). The topography and morphology of the island
is variegated, although dominated by a rocky surface and zones of rifts in the
bedrock. These large fractures are visible in the landscape as valleys of differing
width, nowadays often cultivated. The climate of the Kemiönsaari area is one of
the most favourable in Finland. The annual mean temperature on the island (5.5°C)
is among the highest (Tikkanen & Westerholm 1992). Due to this, Kemiönsaari is
within the area of the longest thermic period of tillage of the soil and the longest
thermic pasturing period in Finland (Aario 1960: 6).
The main part of Kemiönsaari and the additional archipelago of smaller islands
belong to the municipalities Dragsfjärd, Kemiö (Sw. Kimito) and Västanfjärd. The
northernmost part of Kemiönsaari is nowadays part of the Halikko municipality. In
addition to the Kemiönsaari material, comparative information for the investigation
has been gathered from twelve municipalities near Kemiönsaari: Nauvo (Sw. Nagu)

15
 KÖYLIÖ
LAPPI
PUNKALAIDUN
KODISJOKI Ostro-
EURA VAMPULA
PYHÄRANTA SÄKYLÄ bothnia

Gulf of ALASTARO
Bothnia Satakunta
Karelia
HUMPPILA
LAITILA
Häme LOIMAA
ORIPÄÄ
YLÄNE Finland
KALANTI
Finland
Finland
Finland Proper Uusimaa
Gulf of
SWEDEN Finland
MYNÄMÄKI The Åland YPÄJÄ
PÖYTYÄ
UUSIKAUPUNKI Islands MELLILÄ
VEHMAA
NOUSIAINEN
KARINAINEN
ESTONIA
MIETOINEN
VAHTO
AURA KOSKI TL
SOMERO
TAIVASSALO
ASKAINEN TARVASJOKI

MASKU RUSKO MARTTILA

LIETO
KUUSJOKI
RAISIO

TURKU PAIMIO
PIIKKIÖ
KAARINA
KAARINA
KAARINA HALIKKO PERTTELI
KAARINA
KAARINA
KAARINA

SALO
PARAINEN SAUVO MUURLA

NAUVO KISKO
PERNIÖ
KEMIÖ

SÄRKISALO POHJA
DRAGSFJÄRD
VÄSTANFJÄRD TENHOLA

TAMMISAARI

0 20 km
HANKO

Fig. 1. The study area consists of 15 municipalities in the eastern part of the
province of Finland Proper in southwestern Finland. The main focus is on
the island of Kemiönsaari, i.e. the municipalities of Dragsfjärd, Kemiö and
Västanfjärd. The historical division of provinces is indicated in the upper
part of the map.

16
and Parainen (Sw. Pargas) in the archipelago as well as Halikko, Kuusjoki, Muurla,
Paimio (Sw. Pemar), Perniö (Sw. Bjärnå), Pertteli (Sw. St. Bertils), Piikkiö (Sw. Pikis),
Salo (the former parish of Uskela), Sauvo (Sw. Sagu) and Särkisalo (Sw. Finby) on
the mainland (Fig. 1). The total study area thus covers a land area of 3114 km2.
The distinction between a ‘mainland municipality’ and one belonging to the
archipelago poses some problems. In the case of Särkisalo, for instance, half of the
territory is on the mainland while the other half consists of islands. One might
also question whether Kemiö should actually be treated as a relevant part of the
archipelago. This, however, is not a major problem. The municipalities chosen
provide borders for the gathering of data and a starting point for analysis, while
the mainland/archipelago dichotomy concerning the present municipalities should
be understood merely as a way of presenting trends in the data. Some of the
comparisons are simply easiest to make at this level. In these cases the material
from the Kemiönsaari municipalities together with that from Nauvo and Parainen
will be contrasted with material from the rest of the comparative study area.

1.3. A short history of research of Kemiönsaari

Archaeological research of Kemiönsaari began in the late 19th century. In 1871, H.

A. Reinholm conducted an excavation at Högholmen in Hiittinen (Sw. Hitis) in the
southern part of the archipelago, and in 1886 Volter Högman investigated Bronze
Age cairns in the Kemiönsaari area. Högman’s work was important; he gathered
information on a total of 120 archaeological remains, most of which were cairns,
and twelve of which he excavated (Tuovinen 2002a: 35-40).
In the 1920’s and 1930’s only some minor surveys and excursions were made in
the area as well as a rescue excavation of a cairn in Söderby in Kemiö (cf. Tuovinen
2002a: 40). Later important excavations were carried out in 1938-39 on the medieval
chapel site at Kyrksundet in Hiittinen (Nordman 1940). An even more essential step
towards a general understanding of the prehistory of the area was the publication of
a synthesis of the archaeological material by Nils Cleve in 1942. The main emphasis
was on the Bronze Age (as the cairns of the area were regarded as belonging mainly
to this period). The Stone Age of the area was at that time known only in the form
of a couple of dozen stone artefacts and the Iron Age was represented by just a few
finds and observations (Cleve 1942: 4, 16-18). Soon after the publication, however,
Cleve himself found the first Stone Age settlement sites in Dragsfjärd (Cleve 1948:
487-488).
The next important research period only started in 1983, when the University
of Turku began a survey of cairns in southwestern Finland (Tuovinen 1990a, 27-

17
28; Salo 1992), including the municipalities of Dragsfjärd, Kemiö and Västanfjärd.
During the same year a course for amateur archaeologists started at the Adult
Education Institute in Dragsfjärd. This course continued for several years, thus
stimulating the discovery of previously unknown antiquities. A similar course
started at the Adult Education Institute in Kemiö a year later. During the 1980’s
and 1990’s the institutes also organized several small excavations in the area. These
amateur activities led to important discoveries and research findings, mainly due
to the fact that the antiquities of the area proved to be insufficiently known, and
because of the involvement of the University of Turku, which provided a channel
for the reporting of new finds and observations. Also the excavations financed by
the institutes were organized in cooperation with the university (cf. Pihlman 1995:
6-9).
In the archipelago area the survey of cairns soon developed into a more general
approach, with the aim of registering other types of sites and antiquities in maritime
environments as well (Tuovinen 1990a: 29). The most remarkable observation was
the discovery of a Late Iron Age trading site at Kyrksundet in Hiittinen in 1991.
The National Board of Antiquities conducted further investigations of this site
during the years 1992-1996. Altogether, the increase in archaeological material in
the Kemiönsaari area during the 1980s and 1990s was considerable. In addition
to some minor summaries (Asplund & Vuorela 1989; Asplund 1990; Tikkanen
& Westerholm 1992: 18-21), a larger synthesis was published in 1997 (Asplund
1997b), the main contribution of which was an evaluation of the new Stone Age
materials and a presentation of the first finds from Pre-Roman settlement sites
on Kemiönsaari. The results of the survey of cairns in the area have also been
published; the Kemiönsaari data is included in the general survey report of the
project (Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992) and in the monograph on the cairns of the
archipelago (Tuovinen 2002a).

1.4. Sites and centrality

Archaeological information from Kemiönsaari and the comparative study area

has been assembled in a database, containing geographical data together with
descriptive information and references. A listing of site names, coordinates,
classification and references is presented in Appendix 1. The overall material
consists of 3,226 items of information. The main information unit is the ‘site’, which
in this case means any geographically defined place containing archaeological
information, classified as to type and chronology. This definition differs from more
traditional ideas of archaeological sites (Renfrew & Bahn 1991: 42; Bahn 1992: 460;

18
Mignon 1993: 290-293; cf. Dunnell 1992: Site type Number
22-25; Carman 1999: 23; Barford 2000: Boat find 18
85-86) in the sense that archaeological Cairn 640
information does not necessarily have Cairn? 118
Cemetery 72
to include visible structures or artefacts,
Cemetery? 34
and in that the physical location of the Chapel site 3
‘site’ may be known only within certain Charcoal burning or tar extraction site 23
(even vague) limits. In addition to Clearance cairn 4
Cup-marked stone 49
structures, artefact clusters and single
Cup-marked stone? 6
finds, the definition can in principle Fortification 2
include places related to narratives Harbour 4
describing finds or the use of places in Hill-site 11
Hill-site? 9
the past, as well as locations containing
Holy well 4
nothing but ecofacts or geofacts.3 The Inscription 32
latter can be regarded as archaeological Labyrinth 7
sites if archaeometrically dated and Labyrinth? 2
Mound 7
thus producing evidence of past human Mound? 5
impact on the natural environment (cf. Pit-trap 5
Barford 2000: 87). Furthermore the ‘site’ Pit-trap? 4
Pollen sample site 16
is not always an entity possible to locate
Quarry 3
at present. It may have disappeared or Settlement site 224
may as well be a unit of archaeological Settlement site? 151
information containing just indistinct Stone oven 39
Stone oven? 5
geographical data. The fact that the site
Stray find 1486
is not only a geographically defined Stray find? 98
locale, but subjectively defined as to Tomtning 6
type or function as well as dating, Tomtning? 4
Undefined 117
also involves the possibility of several
Undefined pit site 13
overlapping sites at one single spot. Village 5
This definition of the site is Total 3226
convenient with regard to the collecting
Fig. 2. Types and numbers of occurrences of
and storing of data, but it is, of course, archaeological sites identified in the study
problematic if applied directly as a area.

3
Here the term ‘geofact’ refers to remains of the geological and biological formation of
the cultural landscape, preserved through geological and biological processes rather
than by conscious human actions (Welinder 1992: 76). This is not to be confused with the
use of the term ‘geofact’ meaning a proposed artefact that may actually be of geological
origin (e.g. Kinnunen 2005).

19
representation of the use of places in the past. This is due to the often stated fact
that the site is a conceptual construction not directly applicable to real human
life; some landscapes or places where people live and act are characterized by the
accumulation of material remains while others are not (e.g. Barford 2000: 86). In
large-scale studies such as the Kemiönsaari case the ‘site’ is, however, still the most
realistic concept for ordering and classification of data. In the current database types
of sites were mostly accepted in the
way they have been registered during 1800

surveys and excavations (Fig. 2) and

1600
the main chronological framework
was coded as in the Registry of 1400

Ancient Monuments at the National

1200
Board of Antiquities (Uino 2000: 243).4
In addition, the character of the sites 1000

was in many cases evaluated further

800
in the descriptive part of the database
and the chronology was supplemented 600

with more detailed dates whenever

400
possible.
The sites entered into the database 200

were not defined as necessarily having 0

geographical locations within certain Stray find sites Other sites Undefined sites

limits, such as, for example, in the case

of a mapped cemetery or a known find-
spot for an artefact. This means that
an artefact with information assigning
only the parish or municipality where
Fig. 3. Number of items with defined
geographical coordinates (coloured) in rela­
tion to the total number of items classified
as stray find sites, other types of sites and
undefined sites in the study area.

4
With regard to the dating of sites it is obvious that Historical Period sites are
underrepresented. If noted at all in archaeological surveys they have often gained a
lower status in the survey reports than prehistoric sites. In the database information
on such sites (as well as undated sites) have been included in cases when the sites have
been specifically pointed out in reports or when the depiction and/or location of the
sites have been regarded as relevant. Oral information related to Historical Period use of
specific places as well as sporadic information on common Historical Period settlement
remains like house foundations etc. have mostly been left out of the register. Types of
sites not included in the study at all are underwater sites such as wrecks of different age,
submerged stray finds etc. According to the register of underwater sites at the National
Board of Antiquities, there are 130 such sites registered within the study area, 77 of
which are wooden wrecks. The most numerous underwater sites are (not unexpectedly)
in the archipelago, as in the municipality of Dragsfjärd (61 sites, 36 of which are wooden
wrecks), and Nauvo (26 sites, 17 of which are wooden wrecks). Most of the sites are
undoubtedly from the Historical Period – none has been regarded prehistoric.

20
it has been found represents a ‘site’ potentially as important as a site defined by
precise geographical coordinates. In fact, over 40 % of the information collected
for this study lacks a well-determined location (Fig. 3). Sites of this type may seem
more abstract, but in some form they have certainly existed. A site in this category
is a place containing archaeological information, classifiable as to type and dating,
known to have existed within certain geographical boundaries, although vaguely
defined. The definition in a way accepts the history of finds and observations as one
factor in the formation of sites, which stresses the contemporaneity and subjectivity
of the concept. Different finds may originate from the same geographical locale and
prehistoric context, but through a different history of discovery and interpretation
they may end up as representing different ‘sites’. This is one bias present in the
calculations of the quantity of sites – especially those lacking precise geographical
coordinates. The use of such indefinite geographical information is possible, but
is related to the scale one is working with: the closer to the landscape we proceed,
the more exact data we have to work with. As the lack of detailed geographical
information mainly concerns single finds, a quantitative comparison of stray find
distribution in the study area can be carried out only according to present-day
municipalities. Other types of sites do not pose such problems, since they have
often been well mapped due to antiquarian research and aims of registering and
protecting monuments in the landscape.
As already stated above, the concept of a site in the sense of the location of a place
containing archaeological information is relatively unproblematic, but the further
interpretation of the archaeological data is not. In particular those sites denoting
spatial aggregates of information are difficult to deal with, as the archaeological
record itself does not define specific types of sites. The interpretation or creation of
site types from clusters of information depends in all cases on the archaeologist. In
fact, one reason why the site concept has been regarded weak is that it simplifies
and blurs archaeological variation (e.g. Tuovinen 2000b: 33-34). Further criticism is
related to the idea that, although clustered, archaeological material can be regarded
as spatially continuous. According to this view, rather than looking for structured
sites, the archaeological record could be viewed as a pattern of continuous artefact
distribution and density. This shifts the interest from the site to the artefact and has
led to a call for ‘off-site’ (Foley 1981: 166, 180), ‘siteless’ or ‘nonsite’ archaeology
(Dunnell & Dancey 1983; Dunnell 1992: 33-37). Another view, further complicating
the issue of sites, stresses the value of thinking in terms of ‘place’ rather than ’site’.
We are not dealing only with mapped and measurable space but also with the
meanings and associations that locations have had for people in the past and
have in the present (e.g. Carman 1999: 26). All these restrictions with regard to the
proficiency of the notion of the ‘site’ thus should be kept in mind. One may also

21
ask, if holding on to the site concept, whether or not each type of site should have
an explicit definition? In principle the answer to this question is yes, but within
this study one mainly has to rely on the observations and interpretations recorded
in former reports, with all the problems of subjectivity they may contain. Siteless
archaeology, for example in the sense of avoiding the use of the site concept in the
discussion of aggregates of information (or even single finds), has not been possible
to realize.5 Another perspective on the idea of sitelessness is, however, important.
Even if this study is based on a large number of information items, this is not the
reason why the main study area is interesting. On the contrary: Kemiönsaari draws
our attention because of the scarcity of information for parts of the Iron Age. One
point in the present study is that even findless areas have a past and should be
included in the debate over settlement archaeology.
The contrast between areas sparse in archaeological finds and areas with
clusters of finds inevitably leads to a discussion on the reasons for such a pattern.
Groups of contemporary sites within a region are likely to indicate some kind of
importance with regard to the practical function or emblematic meaning of the
area. When bordered by areas characterized by lack or scarcity of similar features,
site clusters give the impression of centrality, i.e. being central areas in some respect
when compared with areas lacking similar groups of sites. Centrality implicitly also
indicates a relationship between the area regarded central and areas outside it, as
a centre can have meaning only in relation to a surrounding area. This relationship
should not be thought of as solely associated with the recorded material culture
remains, but as part of prehistoric reality. If discussing, for example, central areas
of some period of the Iron Age, this entails the idea of centrality having been
experienced by at least someone during the period in question. It also involves the
recognition of marginality, ‘the outside’, ‘the periphery’ or some other appearance
of non-centrality.

5
Even if difficult to put into practice, the idea of site-less archaeology must be regarded
as a potentially important topic within the build-up of archaeological databases for
research as well as protection. In Finland the development with regard to survey
reports and thus the information collected for the Registry of Ancient Monuments
at the National Board of Antiquities seems, however, in some cases to promote the
opposite, i.e. combining information into larger entities. There has been a tendency of
registering (for protection and maintenance purposes) whole landscapes or sites which
are conglomerates of earlier archaeological data. The problem with this development is
the blurring out of previous more detailed artefact or single observation data. It would
be wiser to collect and preserve data as detailed as possible, realizing that the formation
and defining of protected landscapes is a process of interpretation, which should not be
the basic result of the survey, but merely an elucidation of the data collected. A strategy
of more detailed collecting and reporting of data (including more careful holding on to
and follow-up of previous information on single sites and artefacts) would also make
survey reports and registers more suitable for archaeological research.

22
 Ideas of central settlement areas with surrounding zones of economic utilization
have been present ever since 1826 when von Thünen presented his model
according to which different types of land-use within a uniform environment will
form concentric circles around a centre of settlement (Hodder & Orton 1976: 229-
231; Butzer 1982: 216-218). Within archaeology the theoretical debate concerning
relations between settlements and their surroundings accelerated in the 1970’s
when, for example, site-catchment analysis was introduced (Vita-Finzi & Higgs
1970). Of great importance was the centre / periphery terminology applied by
Wallerstein (1974) in his book “The Modern World–System”, the ideas of which
were adopted by anthropologists, and soon found their way also into the field of
archaeology. ‘Centre’ and ‘periphery’ then became a widely used terminological
pair. Later there was also criticism of the use of these concepts, which came to be
regarded as partial, Eurocentric and non-dialectic (e.g. Mogren 1996: 137-138).
More recently the concepts of ‘central place’ and ‘power centre’ have been used
in connection with special sites signifying centrality, especially in Scandinavia, but
also in, for example, Estonia. In Scandinavian archaeology the concept ‘central
place’ indicates a settlement with a rich and varied find material, indicative of a
place of regional or supra-regional importance. Usually it is assumed, that a centre
of this kind was the residence of a paramount leader and his attached specialists.
Their function may have included the monopoly of force, economic management
and ceremonial legitimisation of power (Fabech 1999: 456). The idea of ‘centrality’
of the Kemiönsaari study maybe comes closest to Brink’s (1996: 237) idea of a
central place being a site or a small settlement structure with “some function or
significance exceeding the particular site or settlement, in other words, some kind
of “power” over a wider area”.
Regarding Finland principally just one analysis of settlement development
has been done with special reference to centrality / marginality and the meaning
of central places. The study deals with Southern Ostrobothnia. According to
Viklund (2002) there existed sites (like Pörnullbacken, Gulldynt and Pukkila) in
Ostrobothnia, reminiscent of central sites in Scandinavia during the Middle Iron
Age. These central places with their old connections and settlement structure might
have declined due to the early state formation process in Scandinavia in the Late Iron
Age. This could, according to Viklund, be one reason for the sparse archaeological
material and site discontinuity in Late Iron Age Ostrobothnia. Like in Viklund’s
study, it has often been the Migration Period that has inspired archaeologists to
discuss Iron Age central areas. The most well-known attempt in this direction
is the one by Ramqvist (1988; 1990; cf. Ramqvist & Müller-Wille 1988) where an
idea of petty kingdoms and power centres (a couple of which in Finland) during
the Migration Period is presented. Schauman-Lönnqvist (1996) has discussed the

23
same issue, with reference to Ramqvist, but concerning the Merovingian Period.
According to her there is no evidence in the archaeological record of power centres
– at least not during her period of study. Rather there appears to have been small
seats where petty noblemen represented the power elite on the local level, but no
centres capable of controlling whole provinces. Certain families or kin groups were
involved in a system that supplied them with prestige goods from Scandinavia
and Europe; in such a prestige goods system luxury goods and services would
have been exchanged between leaders and allies (Schauman-Lönnqvist 1996: 134-
135). The nature of finds indicates that in the Merovingian Period the local people
were allied with the chieftains of central Sweden. In the Laitila area examined by
Schauman-Lönnqvist the Scandinavian and continental contacts were not restricted
to the Merovingian Period, but were according to Schauman-Lönnqvist (1996: 135)
apparently already established during the Roman Period.
These are just a couple of examples on ideas related to centrality and Iron Age
society – a topic which will be explored further in the latter parts of this book.
It should be immediately pointed out, however, that there is a wide range of
ideas concerning the level of social organization and complexity during the Iron
Age. Some archaeologists have claimed the existence of provincial organizations
during the Late Iron Age (the maximalistic view) while others have acknowledged
a limited (minimalistic) level of organizational development where no stable
structures of social organization existed. From the point of view of this study it
is interesting to note that Tuovinen (2002a: 251-252), writing from the point of
view of the southwestern Finnish archipelago, has expressed criticism against the
idea of centrality and power structures during the Bronze Age as well as the Iron
Age. According to him “territories, central places, and expressions of power have
connections with the structure of Western communities, perhaps even with male-
dominated research traditions”, so he does not find it surprising that analogies are
sought in prehistory. Tuovinen does not totally deny the possibility of occurrence
of such phenomena, but according to his view, the Metal Age communities should
be regarded as fairly local and egalitarian.
One problem for archaeologists when discussing centre and periphery
relationships is how to evaluate the lack of archaeological material. Problems occur
if ‘centre’ is defined solely as a cluster of finds and ‘periphery’ as an absence of
finds – or merely as a remote area. In such cases it is questionable whether these
concepts contribute any additional information at all. This is a problem also in
the present study, as it is difficult to give ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’ any particular
definition; a central settlement area is simply identifiable as an aggregation of sites
within a microregion, and the area outside is something else. This constellation
of sites could, however, have involved a real centre-periphery relationship. If the

24
scarcity of Iron Age finds outside the central settlement areas were accepted as
indicating a scarcity of permanent settlement, the relationships between centres
and surrounding areas during the Iron Age could perhaps be described as a set
of relationships between centres and separate areas of production. Applying a
terminology used by Venclová (1995: 162-164) the Iron Age archipelago could have
acted not only as an area of settlement and production but like an ‘industrial zone’,
constituting the dislocated production areas of several settlement areas.
The defining characteristic of a centre (or core) / periphery structure is
asymmetrical relations (Sherratt 1993: 4-5). If no structural inter-dependence
between areas exist, it is doubtful to speak about a periphery. Another possibility
would be to refer to a ‘margin’, in the meaning of an area occasionally in contact
with a core, but without obligations or other forms of asymmetrical connections
(Sherratt 1993: 6). In a simple model by Dahnberg & Sandin (1996) two areas
may have 1) no contact, meaning that no centre / periphery relationships exist;
2) symmetrical contact, likewise meaning the absence of a centre / periphery
relationship; or 3) asymmetrical contact, meaning the presence of a centre /
periphery relationship. This is a good division to keep in mind. Asymmetrical
centre / periphery relationships can probably be defined and properly explained
with regard for example to the relationship between wilderness utilization areas
and central settlement areas in Finland in general, but on a smaller scale this is
more problematic. Within the study area, we may ask how asymmetrical contact
might be identified? If, for example, settlement aggregation would have been the
cause for clustering of sites, it cannot be assumed that this automatically led to
an interest in the specific exploitation of peripheral areas – on the contrary, this
could indicate a shift of interest from a dispersed presence in the landscape to a
more fixed involvement in the emerging centres. With regard to the relationships
between settlement units and areas, this could actually mean moving from a state
of symmetrical contact towards another pattern of symmetrical contact, even
though the pattern of settlement changed. On the other hand, if the archipelago
was continuously settled by a specific island population, as suggested by Tuovinen
(2002a), his idea of an economic barter system between archipelago and mainland
is not necessarily the only possible form of contact – at least not on a coequal basis.
Rather, the difference in archaeological materials could indicate the different status
of areas – central settlement areas and an outlying periphery – which may have
promoted a factual central area dominion of the periphery.

25
1.5. The long-term perspective

A basic component of this study is the recording and interpretation of changes

of the archaeological record within the study area. The term ‘settlement change’
refers to the interpretation according to which different patterns of site or artefact
distribution potentially indicate changes in settlement distribution or density,
discontinuities or changes in the nature or intensity of utilization, as well as changes
related to the roles and relative importance of different settlement areas.
In trying to understand the general settlement development as well as specific
periods of change, time is a highly important factor. Continuity or change of
cultural phenomena can have meaning only within a segment of time. In this study,
a long-term perspective has been considered appropriate in order to understand
the reasons for the formation of specific site patterns during the Iron Age, the
main feature being clustering of sites giving the impression of central settlement
areas. The idea is to compare Iron Age material from both the central settlement
areas and the potential ‘periphery’ with information on settlement development
prior to the Iron Age and (to a lesser degree) the Historical Period settlement of
the area. This has been done as long-term processes can be considered as possibly
explanatory in the case of settlement formation and transformation. An opposite
approach, focusing on some period of the Iron Age alone, would in this case not
have been adequate. Working in too narrow a time perspective, one might process
data without being able to take into account mechanisms of long duration. Events
reflected in the archaeological material might be overestimated and the results
skewed as when working in a too narrow geographical niche. The systemic idea
that something happening at a time ‘n’ is dependent on the system’s state at ‘n-1’ is
still quite sensible.
The theory of a deeper long-term dimension (longue durée) behind the unique
events of history has been stressed by the Annales school of historians (cf. Duby
1994: 194, 213-214), which has influenced archaeology as well (Hodder 1987; Knapp
1992). According to this view, cultural evolution can be characterized as a series
of environmental, economic and social processes occurring at different rhythms
and rates. These intertwined processes lead to the recreation or change of diverse
aspects of culture while historical events have the character of indeterminate
short-term bursts of change or unique human actions (Braudel 1980: 27-34;
Knapp 1992: 6; Smith 1992: 25). Archaeological evidence of change is, however,
difficult to interpret as reflecting historical events (e.g. Sherratt 1992: 140). One
good example of this problem is provided by Duke (1992: 108), in his discussion
of change applying Annales concepts and identifying the adoption of the bow and
arrow as an "event". In Duke’s case the ‘event’ is applied merely as a marker of

26
transition, thus pushing the use of the concept too far from its original meaning.
For changes of this nature the concept ‘episode’ has been suggested (Kuna 1995:
46). An episode, unlike an event, is not unique or particular, but something that
is an essential part of a structural process. In the following parts of this study we
can, for example, ask whether the abandonment of Pre-Roman settlement sites on
Kemiönsaari could have been episodes of a process or merely events arising from
particular decisions.
In addition to the structural long-term history, the archaeology of small time-
scales has also become increasingly important. The archaeology of short-term
time-scales often means studies related to the social history of ordinary life, while
long-term approaches explore general trends and the history of institutions and
organization. Short-term archaeologies work within the context of the human
lifecycle, approaching questions such as for example age in the construction of
personal and social identities (Gilchrist 2000). Such scales of research are not within
the scope of this study. The Kemiönsaari discussion aims at exploring general trends
and the broad ecological and organizational history of settlement development.
The role of individuals in the process of decision-making and generation of change,
however, cannot be ruled out. Thus there cannot be a manifest distinction between
time-scales. The short term may reproduce or create the long term (Hodder 1987:
5); or – vice versa – long-term development may lead to a state promoting sudden
episodes of change.

1.6. Palynology – a comparative analysis

One possible approach when trying to elucidate the settlement history of an

area sparse in archaeological finds is the use of palynology. A comparison of
archaeological data with palynological evidence, i.e. geofacts obtained by means of
pollen sampling, may provide answers as to the history of farming as well as more
general information on environmental factors and changes. The first attempts in this
direction were made within the main study area in the 1980’s when two sites in the
northeastern part of Kemiönsaari were sampled and analysed (Asplund & Vuorela
1989). Later three other sample sites were selected from other parts of the island,
two of which were as close as possible to the Pre-Roman settlement sites in Kemiö
and Västanfjärd (Appendix 2). Unfortunately, the locations of the sample sites
are to a great deal dependent on the availability of suitable basins to be sampled.
Thus the locations are not optimal as to their relationship with archaeologically
defined sites, nor has it been possible to systematically cover the whole island. The
five sample sites analysed have, however, a reasonably good coverage as they all

27
come from different parts of the island, from variegated environments and from
elevations providing the opportunity to study the whole of the Iron Age – some of
them also earlier periods. The presupposition is that the results of these analyses are
feasible to use as a comparative material and that they can be used for a synthesis
of the land-use history of the island.
An important fact that can be stated immediately at the onset is that evidence of
farming occurs in the archipelago of the study area already preceding the Iron Age.
The earliest date from Kemiönsaari, 3360 ± 100 BP (Hel-2410), is from sediment
containing cereal pollen at Ilsokärret in Kemiö (Asplund & Vuorela 1989; Vuorela
1990: 119-120; 1999: 147-148).6 A calibration of this dating gives the ranges 1890-1420
cal BC, i.e. the latest Neolithic or the Early Bronze Age.7 Sporadic evidence of farming
can also be seen in pollen samples from Kemiönsaari dating to the Bronze Age and
the Early Iron Age. Comparative materials from other parts of the study area point
in the same direction: cultivation was practised both in the archipelago and on the
mainland as early as the Late Neolithic or the Bronze Age. In the archipelago an
important site is Lalaxkärret in Nauvo, where the absolute Cerealia level is dated to
about 1960 cal BC, which is actually one of the oldest reliable dates for cereal pollen
in Finland altogether (Vuorela 1990; 1998: 176). These observations support the idea
that the adoption of a subsistence economy based at least partly on agriculture did
happen earlier than the changes in archaeological materials and site patterns that
become visible in the Iron Age AD. If these changes mirror something related to
farming subsistence it is not the introduction of farming which is reflected, but
some development within a society already practising cultivation.

6
The site has earlier been mistakenly published under the name “Isokärret”.
7
The calibrated dates in this book are given with a 95.4% probability, calibrated according
to Stuiver et al. (1998), if not referenced otherwise.

28
2. Settlement and environment

2.1. What is settlement archaeology?

In the preceding chapter the geographical environment and time-scale of this study
were broadly defined. Within this geographical and chronological setting, the focus
is on archaeological material related to the people who settled and utilised the area
and on changes occurring through space and time. The general approach of the
study can be described as ‘settlement archaeology’ or a ‘settlement pattern study’.
Already in the early 20th century the term ‘settlement archaeology’ was included
in the vocabulary of the German archaeologist Gustaf Kossinna and his followers
(Jankuhn 1976: 2, 23; 1979: 20). The concept siedlungsarchäologische Methode was part
of an approach focussing on ethnic conditions of the past and the present, bound
together by the development of continuities within settlement areas (Kossinna
1911). Kossinna supposed that Germany was a centre of prehistoric developments,
which led to his ideas later being used in nazi propaganda. In modern form,
the German Siedlungsarchäeologie was launched in the 1960’s and 1970’s when, in
particular, Herbert Jankuhn (1977; cf. 1976; 1979) dealt with the topic on a number
of occasions.
The roots of Swedish settlement archaeology too have been sought in studies
conducted in the early 20th century (Ambrosiani 1987). As in Germany, however,
a modern settlement archaeology oriented towards cultural geography developed
later, in the 1960’s and 1970’s (Dahlbäck 1977: 379-385). Apart from scientific
progress, surveys started in connection with the new general map (ekonomiska
kartan) in the 1930’s were also of importance for developments in Sweden, as was
the new Antiquities Act, launched in 1942 (Selinge 1989). The new survey results
together with the new legislation gave archaeologists a good starting point for
conducting large excavations at a time of increasing land-use due to economic
growth during the 1950’s and 1960’s. The material gathered in the surveys and the
large number of excavated sites led to a need for general interpretations concerning
settlement development (Selinge 1986: 4).
The first major Swedish settlement-archaeological synthesis was made by Björn
Ambrosiani (1964). It dealt with settlement formation, the process of colonization
and the development of villages in a study area in central Sweden, making use of
over ten thousand registered sites and an analysis of historical maps of the area.
It is not surprising that settlement archaeology was also the theme of the Nordic
Archaeological Congress (Nordiska arkeologmötet) held in Sweden in 1964. During
the following years, studies conducted by cultural geographers (on for example
field systems) came to have great influence on settlement-archaeological research

29
(e.g. Lindquist 1968; Sporrong 1971). New types of agrarian remains also gained
increased interest among archaeologists when survey updates started to be made
in the 1970’s (Klang 1981; Hyenstrand 1983: 51; Widgren 1986; Selinge 1989: 19-
21).
From a Nordic point of view the main framework of settlement archaeology is
to be found in German and Swedish approaches. The concept itself is, however,
far from self-evident; settlement archaeology has actually proved to be a rather
complex term. Settlement studies can focus on a variety of scales, ranging from
artefacts and activity areas within sites to the distribution of sites throughout an
entire geographic region. There is no single definition of ‘settlement archaeology’
– a fact due in part to the problem of defining ‘settlement’ or ‘settlement site’ (cf.
Carman 1999). In archaeology a settlement is generally considered to be a spatially
and functionally distinct type of site characterised by the presence of domestic
activities (Brück 1999: 55). Some scholars even stress that it is the presence of house
remains in the archaeological material that makes it possible to identify a settlement
or to address relevant settlement archaeological questions (Säfvestad & Björhem
1989: 44; Brück 1999: 63).
On the other hand, studies of settlement location and settlement patterns – often
referred to as a branch of ‘spatial archaeology’ – may operate with more vague
settlement data. In Finland, studies for example of Iron Age settlement units have
mainly been based on cemetery materials rather than information from settlement
sites. In its most extreme form such a study may proceed from the initial premise that
cemeteries indicate the location of settlement and the cemetery datings the duration
of settlement; one may accordingly presume that there has existed a settlement site
close by each cemetery and that each cemetery belongs to one settlement unit (e.g.
Lehtonen 2000: 46). This is a theoretically weak approach, which poses a number
of problems, but is nevertheless understandable in areas where settlement sites
have not been identified. The criticism of the representativeness of grave materials,
however, can be very serious, pointing out that graves are representative only of
the distribution in time of certain burial customs and the (geographical as well as
chronological) distribution of those graves archaeologists have considered worth
excavating (Näsman 1994: 21). Even if the criticism is not pushed that far, the main
problem remains that a direct relationship between cemeteries and settlement is
difficult to confirm; graves reflect religious beliefs, ideology and social strategies
rather than the actual society and settlement (Bennett 1987; Cassel 1998: 27-30; cf.
Lang 1996; Pihlman 2003; 2004).
Settlement archaeology is deeply concerned with spatial relationships. As Hyen­
strand (1983: 10) once put it, it is settlement history and settlement archaeology
that actually give cultural history a spatial dimension. The form of spatial analysis

30
referred to as ‘settlement pattern studies’ covers most of the angles of the kind of settlement
archaeology that has been in mind in the course of the present study. One general definition
of a settlement pattern study is that it is a study of "the spatial distribution of human
habitation and the activity over the geographical landscape, reflected in archaeological
remains and their location relative to one another" (Mignon 1993: 285). This definition
nevertheless covers only the material of the analysis. The interpretative part of such a
study should include an exploration of the influence of environmental, economical and
sociocultural factors on settlement location and density.
A more detailed definition of ‘settlement archaeology’, has been given by Lang (1996:
604) in connection with a large case study conducted in northern Estonia. In that case,
settlement archaeology was defined as "a study of the establishment and development of
human settlement (usually) in a long-term perspective and in its whole versatility, among
others: the dimensions, variability and geographic distribution of settlement units, the choice
of settlement areas, the mutual influences between man and environment, the creation and
re-creation of cultural landscape, the land colonization (so-called landnam) and land-use
systems, the social structure, proprietorship rights and territoriality of society – and all
these in their mutual relations and interaction". There is no need to rewrite or present any
new definition of settlement archaeology for the purpose of the Kemiönsaari study, but it
may be in place to once more shortly reflect upon this issue (which of course can be regarded
as a general view of settlement archaeology). First of all, the material studied must cover
different types of archaeological sites, not only settlement remains. In addition to actual
habitation, settlement archaeology should also explore the whole range of utilisation of
the environment and presence in the landscape. Secondly, in order to understand change,
a long-term perspective must be applied. And, finally, the interpretation of settlement
structure and settlement change should take into consideration both environmental and
economical as well as sociocultural and -political factors.

2.2. Some concepts

2.2.1. Areas and chronology

Valter Lang (1996) has applied three main concepts in his analysis of settlement: 1) the
‘settlement unit’ (Est. asutusüksus), which is the form according to which people live
together (for example on a farm or in a village), established as a result of social and economic
development of society; 2) the ‘settlement area’ (Est. asutuspiirikond), which is that part of
the geographical area which has been turned into a cultural landscape; and 3) the ‘territory’
(Est. territoorium), which is a socio-political concept understood as the geographic expression
of social power. Other useful and partly overlapping concepts could be 1) the ‘community

31
area’, defined as that part of the landscape inhabited and used by the basic economic
and social unit; 2) the ‘settlement zone’, consisting of a group of community
areas, and 3) the ‘microregion’, identified as a strip or cluster of settlement zones
(Dreslerová 1995). Concepts such as these should always be defined, because their
content may vary from case to case: for example a ‘microregion’ or ‘micro-scale
study’ may in some cases mean a study of one settlement unit only (e.g. Ramqvist
1981). In the following discussion of Iron Age settlement in southwestern Finland,
one starting point is the assumption that settlement sites and cemeteries in one way
or another represent settlement units, that groups of synchronous settlement sites
or cemeteries form settlement zones, and that natural geographical boundaries
separate one or more settlement zones into microregions, probably also reflecting a
division of the study area into socio-political territories.
Other important concepts in settlement archaeology are 1) ‘site continuity’ and
2) ‘areal continuity’ (Becker 1977, 30); these address the geographical relations of
settlements as well as the dynamics of continuity and change. These concepts were
already used in the preceding chapter in the example of Pre-Roman settlements,
which in some cases seem to support the idea of a site continuity or areal continuity
of settlement from the Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. It must, however, be pointed
out that the concept of ‘areal continuity’ – like the term ‘semi-static development’
as defined by Callmer (1986: 173) – often refers to rather small movements of
settlements within one community area (cf. Thrane 1977: 117-118), while in this
study the concept refers to continuity within a settlement zone or microregion.
Continuity can also be discussed in relation to different archaeological criteria
of continuity, as suggested by Meinander (1986: 369; cf. Taavitsainen et al. 1998: 214-
215; Taavitsainen 1999a: 354-355). According to this point of view, continuity may
be assessed in terms of six different types of criteria: 1) physical-anthropological, 2)
chorological, 3) topographic, 4) typological, 5) ritual, and 6) ecological or economic.
The most important of these with regard to the present study is the criterion of
chorological continuity, referring to the occurrence of archaeological evidence of
successive periods within the confines of a specified geographical area. Chorological
continuity is here regarded as synonymous with areal continuity and topographic
continuity as synonymous with site continuity.
In all settlement archaeology and especially with regard to changing settlement
patterns, one problem is the question of chronology: in other words, which sites are
truly contemporary or which sites follow each other. Continuity or discontinuity
is to a large extent a problem of establishing the longevity of settlements. When
we view settlement site materials for example from the Finnish Pre-Roman Iron
Age, it is close to impossible to know which sites have been used simultaneously,
as settlement sites are often given only the archaeological dating of a certain

32
ceramic type, covering half a millennium. It cannot be assumed that all sites have
such continuity. This illustrates the point that there is no stable and synchronous
material available for detailed settlement pattern studies. The illusion of site
contemporaneity, however, is hard to abandon. Natural scientific dating methods
may give the archaeologist some confidence, but even the time-spans provided
by these do not necessarily solve the problem (e.g. Artelius 1989). From this it
follows that mapped settlement patterns are just constructs based on the evaluation
and chronological interpretation of survey results of varying representativity
and validity. Changes in settlement patterns recorded by the archaeologist may,
however, reflect real changes in settlement structure and organization.

2.2.2. Settlement units

Further concepts, related to the synchronous structure of basic settlement units, are
‘single farm’ and ‘village’ – a terminological pair forming the core of much settlement
archaeological discourse. The problem of the village concept as well as questions on
the time and reasons for village establishment have been the focus of many studies,
for example in Scandinavia (e.g. Myhre 1999; Schmidt Sabo 2001; 2005). A single
farm can be defined as a permanent self-supporting settlement unit, the inhabitants
of which practise agriculture. In archaeology a single farm manifests itself in the
form of a settlement site or a nearby cemetery situated within a resource area
suitable for an agricultural subsistence strategy (Asplund et al. 1999; Taavitsainen
2000: 24). The village concept can have somewhat different definitions in history
as well as human geography and archaeology. In old Swedish cadastral records,
two or more farmsteads, which go under the same name, have been regarded
as constituting a village (Sw. by) (Fallgren 1993: 61). In history and archaeology,
the basis for the definition of a village seems to be a settlement consisting of at
least two – or three (Becker 1983, 6) – farms cooperating in the use of land and
resources (cf. Biuw 1992: 319; Scmidt Sabo 2001: 51-54). A village could thus be
described as a unit formed by at least two cooperating farms, with opportunities
for daily communication among the inhabitants; in rare cases, villages known from
historical sources may furthermore have been distinguished for administrative or
historical reasons without actual cooperation between farms (Asplund et al. 1999;
Taavitsainen 2000: 24). In conclusion, a village is mainly defined by a quantitative
criterion (at least two farms) as well as a functional one (cooperation) (Fallgren
1993: 61).
In archaeology, the quantitative criterion of a village can be established if sites
interpreted as synchronous farms are situated close together, but proximity does

33
not necessarily mean that a village community actually existed (e.g. Tusa 1993: 50).
For example in certain historical villages several contemporary Iron Age cemeteries
occur, probably indicating cemeteries for different families or farmsteads within
the borders of the later village. These may have formed some kind of village units
during the Iron Age (Kivikoski 1961: 162-163), if we can assume a general areal
continuity with regard to villages from the Iron Age to the historical period (cf. Salo

1a 1b 1c

2a 2b 2c

3a 3b 3c

4a 4b 4c

Fig. 4. Living together – working together? Theoretical combinations

of farms, cemeteries (dots) and cooperation (circles). Farms may be
located near (1,3) or far (2,4) from one another; cemeteries may be
related to a single farm (a) or to several farms (b), or may be situated
outside the basic settlement unit (c); there may be cooperation
between farms (1-2), or single farms may function independently
(3-4). Redrawn from Asplund et al. (1999).

34
1995a: 29). The functional criterion, i.e. the question of cooperation, is more abstract,
but for example field systems, cattle roads and enclosures (e.g. Fallgren 1993: 64-
65) as well as large cemeteries (Meinander 1980: 8; cf. Taavitsainen 1990: 144) have
been taken into account in the discussion of village formation. It is obvious that
the possibility of identifying village formation depends totally on the availability
of suitable material, allowing interpretations regarding the functional aspect of the
village. The normal survey material, consisting chiefly of cemeteries and settlement
sites, is not enough, as distances and relationships between farms and cemeteries
in a village may theoretically be the same as in a settlement structure based on
independent single farms. Riddersporre (1999: 173) has presented a four-type
model of organization of landscape and settlement, which exemplifies different
possibilities of settlement structure (live together / live apart) and the form of
landscape utilisation (work together / work apart). In order to achieve a better
fit with the Iron Age archaeological reality where also cemeteries (bury together
/ bury apart) are of importance, the model can be increased to a nine-type one
comprising three categories: 1) settlement location, 2) the form of organization of
the cultural landscape and co-operation, and 3) the way in which cemeteries are
connected with settlements (Fig. 4). If applying the idea of large Finnish Late Iron
Age cemeteries representing village formation, the settlement unit constituting a
village would probably have had the form 1b or 2b; the medieval village, with a
common graveyard at the Church outside the village, probably the form 1c or 2c.
A third concept suggested for the description and analysis of the basic units of
settlement is the ‘primary unit’ (Blomkvist 1999: 296-299). This term refers to the
smallest functional settlement unit and its natural preconditions, thus bypassing
the issue of village formation and allowing comparisons between units of different
character without a strict classification. A neutral concept such as this could prove to
be a good idea, especially as the village concept in archaeology is biased by the idea
of the regulated medieval village (Frölund & Wilson 1993: 144). In Scandinavia, for
example, it has been claimed that the Late Iron Age farming systems – regardless
of whether they occur as larger fields or small scattered plots – indicate production
organized by each farm separately, meaning that the common settlement unit
during the period 500-900 AD was in fact the single farm; those agglomerated
settlements that occurred could rather be described as single farm conglomerates
than as actual villages (Olsson & Thomasson 2001: 8-9). The proper regulated
villages were formed later in a feudal context during the period 900-1200 in large
areas of northern Europe; in southern Scandinavia this development can be traced
back to the 12th and 13th centuries. A need to refer to settlement without using the
village concept thus is understandable, but the word ‘primary’ is a strange choice
for this over-all concept, as the primary unit could just as well refer to the first

35
established settlement within a given area. Why not simply use the term ‘settlement
unit’? One should also be aware of the problem of translation of the term ‘village’.
This word is now widely used in prehistoric archaeology, although the English
historical ‘village’ usually consists of a number of farms and a church. The smaller
‘hamlet’ would probably describe the Finnish kylä or Swedish by more accurately
(Fallgren 1993: 61; Schmidt Sabo 2001: 53).
While interesting, the question of single farms and villages is beyond the main
scope of the Kemiönsaari study. The form of settlement will be referred to only in
terms of settlement units, as no convincing new material related to village formation
has been established. Village formation within the study area has most recently been
discussed by Schauman-Lönnqvist (1989: 92-96), with particular reference to the
Iron Age remains in the municipality of Salo. According to her interpretation, the
cemeteries in the Isokylä area from the Roman Period, Migration Period and early
Merovingian Period are representative of single farms. The conclusion is reached
that the formation of the village known from historical sources happened over a
400-year period after the early Merovingian Period, which according to Schauman-
Lönnqvist (1989: 93-94) may apply for the most part to the whole of southwestern
Finland. This statement is in agreement with the general idea that village formation
in Finland happened in the Late Iron Age, as suggested by Meinander (1980).
In more recent Finnish settlement archaeological debate, the question of village
formation has not been foregrounded. Instead a new line of discussion related to
other forms of relationships between Iron Age farms has emerged. The general
idea, presented by Pihlman (2004), is that different categories of farms have existed
and that leading farms and subordinate farms have formed economical and
social units. This hypothesis, as well as other ideas on settlement structure and
development presented by Pihlman, will be dealt with on several occasions within
this book, starting with chapter 2.3.3.
One focus of the present study, rather than on villages or single farm-based
economical units, will be on the option of formation of units of a larger scale. These
units – ‘territories’ if using Lang’s (1996) terminology – could be defined as territorial
and organizational units, the settlement units of which are grouped together in a
microregion and bound together by an areal (regional) identity and some form
of superstructure of a socio-political nature. In the predecessor of this book – the
licentiate thesis, which this study is based on (Asplund 2001a) – these units were
discussed under the general concept of parishes and interpreted as units preceding
the proper ecclesiastical parishes of the Middle Ages. The units were furthermore
identified with the Finnish name for the parish, i.e. pitäjä. The way of handling
the concepts proved to be problematic. It led to confusion especially regarding the
parish concept and its relationship with the hypothetical organizational units of the

36
Iron Age.8 In the following chapters of this book, the pitäjä and the parish will be
discussed separately and the concept ‘territory’ (in addition to the ‘microregion’)
will be used to categorize the archaeologically identified regions within which
some form of common decision making is supposed to have existed. In the stage of
research reached in the licentiate thesis, focus was especially on the possibility of
socio-political development – the increase of complexity, power and social control
– being explanatory with regard to changes in settlement patterns. One question
asked was whether the development of Iron Age settlement in the study area could
be explained in terms of the formation or re-formation of socio-political territories.
In this book focus is to a certain extent changed back to environmental factors, but
still sociopolitical development remains an important line of discussion and thus
the dilemma of territories and the pitäjä is still relevant.
Earlier research on the history and prehistory of the Finnish pitäjä has
addressed two main sets of problems. One relates to the identification of Iron Age
predecessors of the historical parishes, using information on, for example, hill-
forts as well as place-names referring to cult sites (hiisi) and the presumed farms of
Iron Age chieftains (moisio) (Tallgren 1933; cf. Saloranta 2000: 39), or the division of
land property (Suvanto 1973: 38-48, 68-70). The other line of discussion relates to
how the pitäjä was constituted. According to one theory, the unit was formed as a
result of some external force (Vilkuna 1964: 37-39). Others see it as a local constuct
– maybe not a strictly organised administrative unit at all, but based above all on
common aims and spontaneous cooperation (Jutikkala 1972: 7-9; Litzen 1977: 330-
331; Taavitsainen 2000: 24). It has also been pointed out that there is a difference
between the ecclesiastical parishes (Fi. pitäjä) and the administrative borders of
taxation units, indicating that no single, absolute concept of the parish has existed
(Litzen 1977). In the present study the problem of territories as well as the pitäjä
is approached from a slightly different perspective. The discussion does not start
from the unit itself, but from asking whether changes in sites patterns, i.e. site
clustering in some areas in opposition to sparse finds in others could have been
due to the formation of socio-political territories, and if so, could these territories
be identified with the pitäjä.

8
Another example of this is the use of the Swedish word socken (parish) when referring
to the hypothetical organizational units of the Iron Age (Asplund 2000: 53).

37
2.3. Environmental history and settlement archaeology
in SW Finland

2.3.1. Historical background in brief

In many settlement archaeological studies there is a level of analysis addressing

the relationship between man and nature in time. The archaeology of man and
environment relationships can be referred to as ‘landscape archaeology’, nowadays
not seldom in a form of social archaeology approaching notions of ritual landscapes
or landscapes of power, landscapes of war etc. (cf. Fabech et al. 1999: 20). Originally
the concept was applied to cases focussing on how a settlement interacts with
the physical setting of the landscape as well as other environmental factors. Such
approaches are related to studies of environmental history and cultural ecology.
In Finnish research, environmental aspects of historical research became popular
rather late. Even in the 1950’s and 60’s, the findings of natural scientists were used
mainly to explain historical development, but independent questions concerning
the impact and importance of environmental factors were seldom raised (Heino
1995: 48). In the 1970’s and 80’s, new lines of ecological thinking had their influence
on historical scholarship. The growing concern for the contemporary environment
led to an increased interest also in past relationships between man and nature.
Ecological terminology was often used in the field of archaeology as well, focussing
for example on ecosystems and the energy production of the environment (Welinder
1984: 113-117; cf. Welinder 1986). In this context in the late 1970’s and the 1980’s the
rise of larger environmentally oriented studies in the field of Finnish archaeology
finally did come about. The first attempt in this direction was the “Isokylä project”,
which conducted large excavations in the Salo Isokylä area during 1978-1982 (Uino
1982; Schauman-Lönnqvist et al. 1986: 21-22). The project focussed on aspects of
the Iron Age community, like settlement pattern, social organization and economy.
For the first time multidisciplinary archaeometric studies (Aalto 1982; Carpelan &
Jungner 1982; Matiskainen 1982; cf. Uino 1986) were incorporated as an essential
part of the project. The results of the project chiefly concern the Isokylä settlement
zone, but the analysis of Iron Age settlement development by Schauman-Lönnqvist
(1989) deals with the whole Salo (Uskela) microregion (with the addition of the
sites in the Halikko and Pertteli municipalities).
In those years questions concerning in particular the cultural landscape arose
in archaeology, mainly influenced by earlier studies in the field of Scandinavian
cultural geography. In Sweden the important project “The cultural landscape
during 6000 years” (the Ystad Project) started in 1982, with the goal of a long-term
multidisciplinary study of the relationship between society and the environment

38
(Stjernquist 1992; Berglund 1994). A year later, a similar three-year multidisciplinary
project – the “Paimio project” – funded by the Academy of Finland started in
southwestern Finland, focussing on changes of settlement and landscape caused by
early land-use (Kukkonen 1985; Hiltunen 1986: 65-67). The project unfortunately
succeeded in producing only some short articles; a major synthesis of its work is
lacking. Its achievements are therefore not actually known. What is perhaps the
most valuable of the results published is a discussion by Hiltunen and Luoto (1985)
of Iron Age settlement, agricultural techniques, and the problem of evaluating
the location of historical versus Iron Age fields and meadows. Due to the sparse
published results it is not surprising that the Paimio Project is not mentioned at
all in a brief review of Finnish settlement-archaeological research by Lang (1996:
344-346). Lang refers to only one example from mainland Finland – the Salo project
– together with one study of settlement development in the Åland Islands (Roeck
Hansen 1991). Special attention is furthermore given to a statistical study by Seger
(1984: cf. 1983). Even if the total picture of settlement-archaeological research in
southwestern Finland alone has been somewhat more complex (including for
example analyses on the level of the parish or municipality), the fact remains
that the Salo project was the most important undertaking in this field during the
1980’s.

2.3.2. Changing environment – changing society

In the 1990’s, the project “Changing Environment – Changing Society” at the

University of Turku continued the multidisciplinary discussion on relationships
between environmental factors and the development of settlement during the Iron
Age and the Historical Period in southwestern Finland. The purpose of the project
was to "examine the reciprocal circumstances that existed between settlement and
environment in the Iron Age and the Middle Ages" (Salo 1994). No detailed project
plan has been published, but the main framework of the project was related to
the identification and evaluation of environmental change, adaptive strategies
and their impact on settlement development. The main approach of the project
was one of environmental determinism, but another purpose was to examine the
role of sociocultural factors in economic processes as well as the role of human-
induced environmental change (Vuorinen 1993: 17). One of the basic hypotheses
of the project with regard to settlement development was that settlement structure,
settlement intensity and settlement change would be due to economical factors;
in other words, that the settlement process would reflect trends of economic
development (cf. Vuorinen 1993: 21). Three volumes published by the project

39
(Nissinaho 1994; 1995; 2000) cover various topics of settlement and landscape
studies, the archaeological research being best represented in the last one.9
The archaeological sub-projects included the analysis of settlement development
of several of the big river valleys on the southwestern Finnish mainland as well
as that of the southwestern Finnish archipelago. The results concerning the latter
area have been best summarized in the publications by Tapani Tuovinen (e.g.
2002). Also some results concerning the mainland area have been published. In
addition to a review of settlement development in the Aura river valley in the
municipalities Turku and Lieto (Salo 1995a), the results of one of the archaeological
sub-projects is known in the form of an abstract from the second EAA meeting in
Riga (Nissinaho 1996), later followed by a separate study related to one specific
settlement area (Nissinaho 2002; 2007).10 Furthermore, two detailed studies have
been published, dealing with Iron Age settlement development in the Vähäjoki
river valley (Saloranta 2000) and the Aura river valley (Lehtonen 2000), both in
the area of Turku, along with quite extensive statistics on Iron Age archaeological
data gathered by the project (Vuorinen 2000b; 2000c; 2000d). Interesting from an
archaeological point of view is, moreover, a tentative analysis of areal division of
land, comparing Thiessen polygons drawn from the location of historical villages
with real village borders (Nissinaho 1997).
Although presented in brief, Nissinaho’s (1996) view of settlement development
is interesting and deserves a short comment together with the results published by
Saloranta (2000) and Lehtonen (2000). Nissinaho’s (1996) investigation is based on
material from three river valleys in southwestern Finland. Within her study area,
the original catchment area for each settlement was about one square kilometre.
In the Early and Middle Iron Age, until the end of the Merovingian Period, the
same area of land-use allowed settlement growth. During this period the number
of settlements doubled, which according to Nissinaho (1996: 60) indicates that the
efficiency of the land-use system and agricultural technology increased. During the
Viking Age new settlements were founded and settlement began spreading closer
to the coast, where land uplift had added new agricultural resources. According to
Nissinaho (1996: 60), the settlement structure became twofold, consisting of "large
main settlements, each with several settlement units and the single farms of the
settlers". Similar thoughts have been expressed in a microstudy of the Masku river

9
The last volume (Nissinaho 2000) has been reviewed by Markus Hiekkanen (2002a;
2002b).
10
In addition to being related to the “Changing Environment – Changing Society” project
the later study by Nissinaho (2002; 2007) was influenced by the project Culture Clash
or Compromise, which dealt with the Europeanisation process of the Baltic Sea area (cf.
Blomkvist 1998).

40
basin; settlement grew bigger but did not expand during the main part of the Iron
Age. According to Nissinaho (2002: 110-113; 2007: 202) this means that resources
utilized from the core area of settlement were regarded sufficient enough – over
time it was possible to raise the effectiveness of cultivation and during the same
time new land was exposed for grazing due to the retreating shoreline; furthermore
there was the possibility of using fishing as a stabilizing component of subsistence.
Environmental resources would have allowed areal settlement expansion as early
as the Iron Age, but farming obviously had reached a stage where it provided a
surplus which made population growth and a higher settlement density possible
within the old settlement area. In the Late Iron Age, however, farming and
subsistence strategies developed in a direction promoting the start of colonization
of new lands.
An increase of settlement density as well as settlement expansion during the
Late Iron Age has also been recorded in the other study areas of the project. In
the Vähäjoki river valley settlement units originating from the Viking Age seem
to have been established in the area of earlier "primary" units (Saloranta 2000: 19).
In the Aura river valley settlement before the late Merovingian Period has been
described as unstable, but from the 8th century onwards a growth of settlement is
indicated by extensive cemeteries; in the Viking Age a drastic expansion took place,
as evidenced by the doubling of the number of cemeteries (Lehtonen 2000: 52-56,
79-80). The settlement in the Aura river area spread during the Viking Age both
towards the coast and towards the upper reaches of the river. A rough comparison
with settlement development in the Salo Isokylä area (Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989)
shows a resemblance between the two areas, in the sense that cemetery materials
indicate an modest increase of settlement units during the earlier parts of the Iron
Age, but the main extension of the settlement zone took place during the Late Iron
Age – in particular the Viking Age. In the Salo (and Pertteli) area, expansion was
also directed both towards the coast and northwards inland.11

11
What is lacking in the studies referred to is an adequate evaluation of the relationship
between the Pre-Roman settlement and the later settlement development recorded in
the analysis of cemeteries. Concerning the Aura river area it is mentioned that the Pre-
Roman Iron Age is sparse in finds (Lehtonen 2000: 52-53). In the Vähäjoki river valley
some "epineolithic" sites are mentioned as occurring in the same areas as later Iron
Age settlement, while others have remained in outlying areas, seen from the point of
Late Iron Age land-use (Saloranta 2000: 18). Schauman-Lönnqvist (1989: 95; cf. Uino
1986: 134-135) briefly mentions the uninterrupted continuity of settlement from the
Bronze Age to the Middle Ages in the Isokylä settlement zone. In the microregions dealt
with by Nissinaho (1988: 44), Pre-Roman finds seem to be missing; the oldest recorded
settlement site mentioned is Myllymäki in Masku, with a radiocarbon age of 1840 ± 110
(Hel-2412), corresponding to the period 100 cal BC – 450 cal AD. In this case only cairns,
probably datable to the Bronze Age, indicate a possible long-term areal continuity.

41
 Nissinaho has used the settlement formation process described above as a
model for other parts of her study area. Reasons for dissimilarities and variation
in settlement patterns in different areas are suggested to be found in ecological
diversity and deficiencies in environmental development (Nissinaho 1996: 60-61).
This environmental deterministic view is understandable in the context of the main
ideas of the “Changing Environment – Changing Society” project. Synchronous
variation as well as changes through time may, however, also have other reasons. It
can be accepted that environmental conditions set some outer limits and that inner
factors such as demography and the economy are of importance. Still it may be
questioned whether this is enough; in some stages of development social behaviour
too may have been crucial in determining where and how people chose to settle.

2.3.3. From village into town

A wider range of social aspects was foregrounded in the project “From Village
into Town, Changing Ways of Life in southwestern Finland from the 10th to the 16th
century” carried out during the years 2001-2005 by the University of Turku and the
Turku Provincial Museum. The approach is well exemplified by the discussions
aimed at understanding the very concept of ‘way of life’ (Suhonen 2005).12 The central
questions were, how main social conditions and factors changed or remained the
same, when the city of Turku developed as a new structure for the newly Christianised
society, how the urban way of life changed and was differentiated, and how trade
and production developed during the Middle Ages (Pihlman et al. 2001; cf. Ruotsi
2003). The project was divided into three sections, one of which a rural section,
aimed at exploring the condition of Late Iron Age society in the surroundings of
the later city.13 The rural section produced results and ideas concerning Iron Age
settlement and settlement organization which also are important and relevant to
discuss in the case of Kemiönsaari and its surroundings.

12
The change of perspective when compared with Changing Environment – Changing
Society point up already when comparing titles of books published by the projects:
“Sites and Settlements” (Nissinaho 2000) now changed into “Rituals and Relations”
(Mäntylä 2005b).
13
One specific site of importance for the rural section was the Mulli settlement site in the
municipality of Raisio, close to Turku. It was excavated 1994-1997 by a venture called
the “Raisio project”, i.e. already prior to the start of From Village into Town. The site
consists of a farmyard with its buildings, trench system, structures and artefacts from the
10th to the 13th century (Vuorinen 1997; 2003: 191-198; Pihlman 2005). It is one of the best
preserved Late Iron Age settlement sites excavated in Finland, providing opportunities
for various analyses, detailed dating and interpretations as well as reconstructions.

42
 In particular ideas presented by Sirkku Pihlman (2004; cf. 2003: 32-33) concerning
Iron Age settlement structure and the representativity of cemeteries are important.
According to her view each cemetery represents a settlement unit larger than the
single farm – a unit so big that it later formed several Historical Period villages.
The cemetery rituals were restricted to, or performed by, the leading family of the
unit. Other families – due to kinship or other ties – were part of the unit, but lived
at farms which did not practise cemetery rituals of their own. The relationships
between leading farmilies and other families may have been based on real kinship,
kinship-like constructed relations, rented farms or unfree tenants. Pihlman’s theory
is influenced by Mats Widgren’s (1998) idea of a social settlement hierarchy during
the Middle Iron Age in Sweden. Widgren has presented a hypothetical division
where a system of smaller and bigger farms existed with different status and
dependence relationships. On the lowest level (A) there would have been small
homesteds where the tenants were unfree, with the obligation of taking care of
animals or land. These homesteads were subordinated some bigger farm and
often existed in peripheral areas, which is one reson why they are difficult to find
archaeologically. On the next level (B) there would have been middle sized farms
occupied by free men, often close to farms of the third level (C); the relationships
between these may have involved kinship, protection etc. The third level farms
were big, based on specialized agriculture, having the possibility of gaining
surplus, which could be invested in bigger or additional buildings, larger herds
etc. The highest level of farms (D) would have been of the same kind, but surplus
was also collected through control of handicraft production and trade; maybe also
tribute was paid by other farms.
The idea of different kinds of dependence relationships between farms adds a
new aspect to the discussion on settlement units. One may ask how a combination
of a leading farm and subordinate farms is to be understood in the framework
of single farms versus villages (or hamlets)? If the subordinate farms could be
regarded as self-supporting (albeit some obligations towards another settlement
unit) we would be dealing with single farms belonging to different hierarchies
(something like 4b in Fig. 4). However, if the lower range farms were in some way
totally dependent on the home farm, the combination could possibly be regarded
as only one single farm unit consisting of the main farm and outlying production
units. The possibility of the economical unit of several farms forming a village-
like combination is not unthinkable, either. If the interdependence of farms had
been close to mutual, symmetric cooperation (like 2b in Fig. 4), this would fulfil
the functional criterion and we would have to consider whether to actually use the
concept of the village (or hamlet).

43
 Ideas such as these enter a range of possible social as well as economical
relationships and hierarchies into the debate of settlement organization and
settlement patterns and how these are reflected in the archaeological record of
southwestern Finland. One of Pihlman’s (2004) ideas is that the unit consisting of
several farms could be spread out in different resource areas and thus add to the
stability of the unit. What seems to be the idea, however, is that these farms would
have been situated within the area of the oldest villages known from historical
sources, i.e. not in the archipelago or other remote areas. The social complexity
discussed by Pihlman would thus concern hierarchies within a settlement zone
or microregion. These are interesting thoughts which – although archaeologically
unattested – will be discussed further in the last chapters of this book.

2.4. Environment and behaviour

2.4.1. Man and nature

In research based on environmental determinism during the 1970’s and 1980’s,

humans were often regarded as dependent on nature, with few opportunities
to control their physical surroundings. It is, for example, evident that cultural
ecologists have seldom asked why people have accepted changes arising from
environmental or technological causes. Was it just because of the slow rate of
change, or did someone perhaps persuade others to adopt new practices (Paynter
& McGuire 1991: 3)? Also the Braudelian concept of the longue durée has often
been connected with ecological determinism, as long-term physical or material
factors are seen as constraints on human behaviour (cf. Knapp 1992: 6). Nowadays,
however, the relationship between man and nature is regarded as more complex.
The post-processual reaction which began in the 1980’s started a debate on (among
other things) the possibilities of human exploitation and manipulation of the
environment, as well as on the subjectivity of landscape. The consequence of such
a debate with regard to settlement archaeology is that non-material factors also
could have been of importance for changes in settlement patterns. The discussion
should be taken one step further, to the level of social, political and psychological
behaviour as neither environment nor demography or economy alone decide where
and how people will live. Human behaviour is largely learned, not genetically or
environmentally determined. From this it follows that existing social and ideological
conditions (as well as random historical accident) must be taken into account in
attempting to understand human responses to differing environmental conditions.
We could, for example, ask whether changes in settlement patterns might occur

44
even in the absence of any major ecological shift, without changing utilisation of
the environment, or during times of just limited demographic growth.
Kuna (1995: 49) has briefly touched on the question of how sudden and unexpected
changes in the natural and social environment might have affected past societies. In
his view, such events as disasters, famines or technical inventions are nothing more
than stimuli, to which societies could have responded in different ways. His point
is that conscious change-oriented behaviour is just one of the possible reactions to
crises or inventions. This is certainly true. Continuity or change in settlement was
probably not always logical, since individuals and groups of people may at times
have been poor interpreters of cultural and environmental situations; changes may
have been ill timed or behavioural responses inappropriate (Gumerman 1994: 5).
As already stated in the preceding chapter, time scales are important. Responses
towards long-term development have been made by individuals acting within a
time-perspective of a lifetime and, on the other hand, choices made by individuals
may have led to long-term change. Long-term effects of manipulation of the
environment, for example, have been impossible to overlook by people involved in
the actions (cf. Keller 2003: 85-86).
An attempt to understand prehistoric settlement development should involve
different aspects and perspectives – spatial, environmental, economic, demographic,
social and behavioural. Furthermore, the interpretation of spatial observations of
changes in site patterns must involve a discussion of the scale of change; areal
discontinuity or change has to mean something quite different from the changes
within the same community area or settlement zone. In the Kemiönsaari case,
the emphasis should thus be on both environmental conditions and behavioural
aspects, exploring the nature and context of Iron Age remains, areal settlement
stability, the general development of food production, demography as well as the
development of sociocultural or -political complexity and its possible effects on
settlement development.

2.4.2. Archaeologies of space and place

The growing interest among archaeologists in phenomenology, semiotics and other

approaches towards the complexity of landscape conceptualisation (e.g. Ingold
1993; Tilley 1994; Children & Nash 1997; Knapp & Ashmore 1999; Jennbert 2000)
is due to a general theoretical change in the disciplines of both geography and
archaeology. In geography, the trend towards new, humanistic ideas of science
evolved similarly to that of the post-processual critique of archaeological theory.
It has become possible to challenge the scientific fixation on a single reality, and to

45
stress subjective interpretations: geographical phenomena can be viewed through
the experiences of the individual (Haarni et al. 1997: 16). Whereas earlier, people
could be seen as part of a landscape, today landscapes are considered to be part
of people (Ingold 1993: 154). The meanings – values, feelings, explanations and
memories – attached to the environment have been considered increasingly
important, regardless of whether they are related to a real or imaginary world. The
theoretical framework for this kind of human geography stems from humanistic
philosophies such as existentialism and phenomenology, whose aim is to deal not
only with the physical demands of human beings but with the human mind as well.
To consider the attitudes of prehistoric societies towards the landscape may be as
important as the ecological and functional dimensions of settlement archaeology.
One concept that came under increasing scrutiny by geographers during the
1990’s was that of ‘space’. The common denominator for these new visions of
space is that it is no longer perceived as a neutral scene or container, within which
social action takes place, but as a factor in social construction (Haarni 1997, 88; cf.
Tilley 1994, 10). According to Christopher Tilley (1994: 10-11), spaces are socially
constructed and are subject to unceasing reproduction or change; thus spaces
also always involve subjective dimensions. In humanistic geography – as in the
phenomenology of Tilley – ‘place’ is another essential concept. The idea of place
was discussed and redefined in the 1970’s by Yi-Fu Tuan (1977; cf. Chapman 1997:
32). ‘Place’ refers to locales to which meanings are attached. Place is not an objective
location but a phenomenon, the content of which is created by human experience
and interpretation (Haarni et al. 1997: 16-17; cf. Tilley 1994: 15). A place is formed
when abstract space becomes a subjective place.
Even if places are always subjectively experienced, the shared experiences and
common visions of the community with regard to the character of specific places
affect the formation of regional group identities (Haarni et al. 1997: 18; Knapp &
Ashmore 1999: 14-16). In the forming of an areal (regional) identity, four (in some
cases coinciding) stages can be distinguished: 1) a territorial shaping, when an
area is distinguished from others through the recognition of borders (cf. Ingold
1993: 156); 2) a symbolic shaping, when icons and symbols characterising the area
are formed; 3) an institutional shaping, when institutions of importance for the
area are established; and 4) the stabilising of the role of the area (Riikonen 1997:
184). Following this division, the territorial shaping of an areal identity, during, for
example, the Iron Age, could have meant the recognition of natural geographical
borders or the borders of the cultural landscape. Furthermore, one could speculate
whether not also centres – the farm, a river or river valley, the core of the settlement
zone or microregion – could have been important for the experiencing of areal
identity. Icons of the symbolic shaping of areal identity could have been the family

46
shrine, places for common rituals etc. The question of institutional shaping and
stabilisation remains more abstract, but can of course be discussed. In the latter
parts of this book institutional issues such as common decision making and
territorial organization will be explored.
Mental dimensions of landscape thus should be part of a discourse of settlement
archaeology, even if not always easy to apply. As the following chapter will show,
from a long-term perspective there is considerable variation in the uses of space
and in the ways in which places are foregrounded in the landscape. In particular
the way in which Bronze Age people conceptualised their landscape seems to have
been distinctive. What lies behind the creation of architectural space in places
where large cairns were built in a way suggesting that this must have been a part of
contemporary group identity? Do these icons actually relate to the making of places
more than to buried individuals or to some segment of society? Other aspects of
the conceptualisation of space and place can be discussed with respect to hill-sites,
as well as to the formation of central settlement areas during the Iron Age. It can
be assumed that the bond between people and landscape in these territories was
experienced most strongly in relation to the home farm and the cemeteries where
important rituals were performed, but probably also in relation to the cultural
landscape of the microregion. Outside the central settlement areas, the connection
was probably different. The wilderness could not be utilised in a routine manner;
forest, land and water had a mythological content and had to be dealt with through
various rituals. This could be reflected in the archaeological material regarding, for
example, single finds. In such a context, single find distributions may equally well
relate to the ritualised landscape as to economic activities directly.

47
48
3. Archaeological material in a changing landscape

3.1. Stone Age material of the study area

Settlement sites and stray finds indicate utilization of the archipelago since the
Stone Age, even though the amount of land was much smaller at that time due to
the considerably higher water level. The total study area (including the mainland
part) contains 237 recorded Stone Age settlement sites, 91 of which are considered
uncertain. Included in these numbers are Late Neolithic sites defined as belonging
to the Stone Age and/or Bronze Age. The number of sites within the archipelago part
of the study area is 52 (Fig. 5). Sites marked as uncertain are mostly cases consisting
of a number of artefacts found together in locations without clear evidence of
domestic activities. The number of settlement sites in relation to altitude shows a
similar trend on the mainland as in present-day archipelago municipalities (Fig. 6).
This suggests a basically similar development of settlement and utilization over the
whole study area.
A considerable difference can be observed between the number of uncertain
cases on the present-day mainland and in the archipelago. On Kemiönsaari only
one settlement site has been registered as uncertain. This must be due to the fact


 



 







  









 
 











 


 

















 





 





























 








 


 








 





 
 







 


  

 







 




 













 








  
 








 








 
 






 
















 

 









 















   
 

  






 




















 





































 
 


























 
 



















 







 



















 


 




 










































 














































 




 

 




 









 

 




 



 











 




  




 











 











 










 









 



















 











 

 









 









 







  

















 










 






















 












 Settlement site
0 20 km





 Uncertain settlement site

Fig. 5. Stone Age settlement sites in the study area, from Mesolithic to
Late Neolithic.

49
 100 Fig. 6. Stone Age settlement sites in
80 mainland municipalities (Halikko,
60
Kuusjoki, Muurla, Paimio, Perniö,
40
Pertteli, Piikkiö, Salo, Sauvo, Särki­
salo) grouped by altitude (upper
20
diagram) and Stone Age settlement
0
>60 60-51 50-41 40-31 30-21 <21 sites in archipelago municipalities
Uncertain
Settlement sites
1
0
3
6
17
12
24
36
30
37
7
4
(Dragsfjärd, Kemiö, Nauvo, Pa­
rai­­nen, Västanfjärd) grouped by
altitude (lower diagram).
50

40

30

20

10

0
>60 60-51 50-41 40-31 30-21 <21
Uncertain 0 0 0 1 0 1
Settlement sites 0 1 8 12 21 5

that the island material is better documented; thus it has been easier to decide
whether a given site should be regarded as a stray find site or a settlement site. As
the occurrence of ceramics can be one criterion for domestic activities, a further
comparison can be drawn, applied only to those sites where ceramics have been
found. This comparison further supports the idea of a similar development on the
mainland and in the archipelago (Fig. 7). Ceramics have been found in a higher
percentage in the contemporary archipelago municipalities, probably due to test
excavations and closer surveys.

15 Fig. 7. Stone Age settlement sites

containing ceramics in mainland
10
municipalities (Halikko, Kuusjoki,
5
Muurla, Paimio, Perniö, Pertteli,
0
50-41 40-31 30-21 <21
Piikkiö, Salo, Sauvo, Särkisalo)
Ceramics 4 7 10 0 grouped by altitude (upper diagram)
Ka 1 5 7 0 and Stone Age settlement sites
3 5 3 0
B
Ki 0 0 2 0
containing ceramics in archipelago
municipalities (Dragsfjärd, Kemiö,
Nauvo, Parainen, Västanfjärd)
15
grouped by altitude (lower digram).
10 The number of sites with ceramic
5
material attributed to the Comb
Ceramic culture (Ka), the Battle
Axe culture (B), and the Kiukainen
0
50-41 40-31 30-21 <21
Ceramics 0
0
6
4
10
6
4
0
culture (Ki) has been added for
Ka
B 0 2 3 0 comparison.
Ki 0 0 3 4

50
 The distribution of stray find sites
200
(Fig. 8) does not add very much to
the picture of Stone Age utilization 100
20
of the study area. Some points,
however, can be made. There are far
more stray finds on the mainland
than, for example, on Kemiön­
saari, probably reflecting a kind of
artefact-per-area ratio and the total
time of utilization of the different 0 20 km

parts of the study area. This has not

been explored further. At the level Fig. 8. Distribution of Stone Age stray find sites
in study area.
of individual municipalities, we
may note Dragsfjärd, in the archipelago, with 30 settlement sites but only 20 stray
find sites, compared to Perniö, on the mainland, with only 8 settlement sites but
233 stray find sites (Fig. 9). This illustrates the differences in the representativeness
of materials from different
70
parts of the study area.
60
50 In Dragsfjärd, settlement
40 sites have been actively
30
20
searched for by amateur
10 archaeologists (Myhrman
0
1990a; 1990b); in Perniö,
Pertteli

Sauvo
Salo

Nauvo

Parainen
Perniö
Muurla

Halikko
Dragsfjärd

Särkisalo
Paimio

Piikkiö

Kemiö

Kuusjoki
Västanfjärd

on the other hand, surveys

have probably focussed
Settlement sites Uncertain
on other types of remains.
Another reason for the
250 high number of single
200
artefacts recorded from
150
Perniö is probably the fact
100
that the local museum
50

0
has long maintained an
archaeological collection of
Pertteli

Sauvo
Salo

Nauvo

Parainen
Perniö
Muurla

Halikko

Särkisalo
Dragsfjärd
Paimio

Piikkiö

Kemiö

Kuusjoki
Västanfjärd

its own, thus stimulating

Stray finds Uncertain
local people to report and
donate their finds.
Fig. 9. Number of Stone Age settlement sites according to
municipalities (upper diagram), compared with the number
of Stone Age stray find sites according to municipalities
(lower diagram).

51
3.2. The Stone Age material of Kemiönsaari

3.2.1. Pioneers in the archipelago

Approximately 7000 years ago, in place of the present-day Kemiönsaari island,

there was a rocky outer archipelago, the largest islands of which were the size of a
few square kilometres (Asplund 1990: Bild 1A; 1997b: 217; Tikkanen & Westerholm
1992: Figure 4A). At that time salt water had already begun to flow into the Baltic
Sea through the Danish sounds that were opening up; the salinity of the water
started to rise and the phase of the Ancylus lake was about to end. Already at this
stage people moved to inhabit the largest islands, several kilometres from the more
sheltered inner islands and dozens of kilometres from the mainland of the time.
These people were experienced navigators and their subsistence must have been
based on diverse marine hunting.
Five separate Stone Age settle­
Period Dating (cal BC)
ment sites, the altitudes of which
The Suomusjärvi Culture (S) 8400-5100
vary between 40 and 55 metres above
Early Comb Ware (Ka 1) 5100-4100
sea level, have been distinguished
The Jäkärlä Group (Ka J) 4300-3000
in Nordanå in the municipality
Typical Comb Ware (Ka 2) 3900-3400
of Dragsfjärd. Accord­ing to the
Late Comb Ware (Ka 3) 3600-3200
contour lines of the base map the
The Pyheensilta Stage (Ka P) 3000-2400
settlement site situated highest,
The Battle Axe Culture (B) 3200-2900
that of Bötesberget, is more than 50 The Kiukainen Culture (K) 2400-1500
metres above sea level. Considering
its elevation, it has probably been Fig. 10. General Stone Age chronology of
inhabited during the final stage southwestern Finland. The different periods
of Comb Ware as well as the Jäkärlä Group
of the Ancylus lake (like maybe and the Pyheensilta Stage are sub-periods or
some of the other sites as well). The local variants of the Comb Ceramic Culture.
oldest shore of the Litorina phase The absolute datings (some of which are rather
in Dragsfjärd is at an elevation of problematic) have been given according to
Huurre (1998), with modifications regarding
roughly 44 metres (Glückert 1976: the Jäkärlä Group and the Pyheensilta stage
Appendix I; Hatakka & Glückert (Asplund 1995) as well as Typical and Late
2000: Fig. 6; cf. Glückert 1996).14 Comb Ware, the datings of which have been
The finds from the settlement sites adjusted according to AMS chronology (Peso­
nen 2004).
consist mainly of quartz, although

14
A more exact dating of the oldest sites on Kemiönsaari with the aid of shoreline dates
has been hampered by difficulties regarding the calculation of shore level displacement
of the area. This problem is referred to in closer detail in Chapter 4.

52
at the settlement site of Bötesberget flint was also found (Asplund 1997b: 220).
The artefact finds represent simple forms with no explicit dating features; there is,
however, nothing in the nature of the finds themselves that would preclude dating
them to the Mesolithic. It is nevertheless questionable whether the settlement sites
can automatically be considered as belonging to the Suomusjärvi culture of the
Finnish Mesolithic (Fig. 10); the presence of flint material could imply a certain
amount of contact with the Estonian Kunda culture, where the use of flint was
more common than in Finland.15
The settlement sites of Nordanå indicate that humans were already active in the
area at the time when the first islands larger than islets emerged from the sea in the
Late Mesolithic. This impression is emphasised by settlement sites found in Ölmos
in an area called Sandbrinkarna, which like the ones in Nordanå are situated high
above the present-day sea level, at approximately 45-55 metres. Settlement sites
situated at an elevation of approximately 40 metres have furthermore been found
in Storfinhofva and in Galtarby in Västanfjärd (Fig. 11).
It would be hard to think of other reasons for the settlement of the outer
archipelago in the Late Mesolithic than the great significance of marine hunting
for the economy of the time. The settlement sites of Nordanå, Bötesberget and
Ölmos were most likely bases from which mainly sealing, fishing and fowling
were practised for a certain part of the year. At other times people inhabited the
coastal area of the mainland or the larger islands near the coast, from which it
was also possible to hunt game and practise a more diverse subsistence economy.
The fact that people were seeking to inhabit coastal areas, the archipelago and
even the rough outer archipelago was not connected with the need to find new
areas to inhabit as mainland settlement grew; rather the reason was that the
archipelago provided a good living environment for Stone Age man. Results
in the field of cultural ecological studies concerning marine adaptation and the
common, universal features of archipelagic settlement indicate that prehistoric
coastal settlements were more stable than inland settlements. In addition to main
settlements that were used year round, people could also inhabit temporary hunting
and gathering sites; related to this is the possibility of rapid travel by boat, which
was far less laborious than travelling on land (Tuovinen 1990b: 16). Archipelagos
with a long and broken coastline are especially favourable to this development.
In such environments natural resources and means of subsistence were more

15
The impact of the Kunda culture in the very origin of postglacial settlement of Finland
has been stressed (Takala 2004). The Mesolithic sites on Kemiönsaari are from a later
stage, but the Bötesberget site might still reflect a similar southern influence. The
location is one of the westernmost areas in Southern Finland where a Mesolithic flint
industry has been traced.

53
 





 

 Nordanå

Storfinhofva

Ölmos










Galtarby

0 5 km

Fig. 11. The oldest settlement sites plotted against the 40 metre elevation line, representing
the Early Neolithic shoreline. The oldest sites in Nordanå and Ölmos are most likely a lot
older than the shoreline reconstruction.

54
diverse than inland (Tuovinen 1990a: 23; 1990b: 16-17). During the final stage of the
Ancylus lake, moving to inhabit small islands was a natural choice for humans, as
fishing, fowling and, to an increasing degree, sealing formed an important part in
the subsistence strategy. The first habitations may have been dwellings occupied
during the hunting and gathering seasons for the people living permanently in
the area of present-day Perniö, but it is likely that the settlement soon had the
necessary qualities for year-round occupation.
In comparison, the earliest settlements of the Åland Islands were previously
considered to be traces of temporary visits during the winter sealing season. Later,
however, it has been assumed that permanent settlement was possible on this outer
archipelago as well; if longer hunting trips were made, they were just as likely to
have been made from the permanent settlements of the archipelago to the mainland
than the other way round (Nuñez 1986: 21-22; 1990: 44-46; 1994: 116). In addition
to hunting, the islands already in the Stone Age offered protection, firewood and
vegetable food.
Among the topics considered in the debate over the suitability of the archipelago
for Stone Age settlement is the so-called polynya phenomenon, which refers to
currents that remain open in the winter. These open-water areas serve as resting
places and sources of food for animals – as oases in the frozen sea – as well as
important hunting sites for people. Nuñez (1990: 46-47; 1994: 121-122; 1996: 29-32)
has proposed that in the Stone Age the broken archipelago of the Åland Islands may
have been a favourable setting for currents that would have maintained openings
in the ice throughout the winter; these in turn would have attracted people to
inhabit the outer archipelago. The reconstruction of ancient sea currents is close to
impossible; such phenomena, however, may also have been significant closer to the
mainland, as in the area of Kemiönsaari, when the archipelago started to develop
over 6000 years ago. Finds related to the first population’s immigration into the
area provide no direct answers as to the reasons for settlement. However, studies
of burnt bones found from the earliest settlements do offer some information on
the marine nature of the hunting and trapping that was practised. According to
present-day knowledge, people started to utilize the Kemiönsaari area soon after
the first islands had risen above the surface of the sea. The same tendency towards
an early utilisation of the Stone Age outer archipelago can be seen on the Estonian
islands, on the Åland Islands, and on the eastern coast of Central Sweden (Kriiska
1995; 1996a; 1996b; 2002; Kriiska & Saluäär 2000; Nuñez 1994; Åkerlund 1996).

55
3.2.2. The Subneolithic

The settlement site Söderby II, situated at an elevation of over 35 metres in the village
of Söderlångvik in Dragsfjärd, can be considered the oldest identified Subneolithic
settlement site.16 The most significant finds are a few fragments of decorated pottery
that have as decoration elements short and distinct comb impressions (TYA 364:8,13),
and in one case a dense so-called spruce twig ornament composed of impressed
lines (TYA 364:13). The last-mentioned piece has been regarded as belonging to
the younger stage of Early Comb Ware (Ka 1:2), and would thus be stylistically
the oldest ceramic find from Kemiönsaari (Asplund 1997b: 223).17 Comb-impressed
fragments of pottery found at the same settlement site may belong either to the
Early or the Typical Comb Ware (Ka 2), or to the ceramics of the Jäkärlä Group (Ka
J; Edgren 1966), typical of southwestern Finland. On the basis of other finds from
the Kemiönsaari island it would appear that the ceramic style of the Jäkärlä Group
was dominant in the area, since Typical Comb Ware occurs with certainty in only
one settlement site, Ansvedja in Dragsfjärd. Ceramics of the Jäkärlä Group that
have been identified with certainty have so far only been found in Söderlångvik
(Nöjis) in Dragsfjärd and in Bogsböle in Kemiö (TYA 610:5-6), but other settlement
sites also have ceramics that are likely to come under the Jäkärlä Group (Asplund
1997b: 224-228).
Ceramics have also been found in several settlement site areas likely to date back
to the Late Comb Ware (Ka 3) period. The settlement site most clearly belonging
to this period is Oxmossen, situated in Storfinhofva in Dragsfjärd. The pieces of
pottery found in Oxmossen are decorated just with pit impressions (TYA 517:15;
Asplund 1997b: 227). Oxmossen is probably the largest of the prehistoric settlement
sites discovered on Kemiönsaari island; finds have been discovered over a distance
of a hundred metres from the sides of a forest ditch dug through the settlement
site, and there are indications that the settlement site may have been even larger.
However, land areas had by that time grown large enough to make year-round
settlement possible (Fig. 12). This may explain the extensive and distinct traces of
settlement in some sites.

16
A Subneolithic culture is contemporary with and to a certain extent similar to the
Neolithic cultures in Europe, having adopted Neolithic features (like the use of pottery),
but differing as to not practising agriculture or cattle husbandry (Gimbutas 1956: 11;
Meinander 1961: 3-4).
17
The identification of the spruce twig ornamented piece is problematic due to its small
size. The composition of the clay paste could in principle make possible the interpretation
that this is not a piece of a ceramic vessel at all, but a fragment of an ornamented clay
figurine. If so, it would belong to the Early Neolithic type of clay idols (Europaeus
1930: 85-88; Äyräpää 1942: 82-91; Heikkurinen-Montell 1986), which would not alter the
typological dating of the site.

56
 







 




 



 


 


0 5 km

Fig. 12. Subneolithic settlement sites at 30-39 metre elevations plotted against the 30 metre
contour line, representing the sea level at around 3500 BC.

57
 Finds clearly belonging to the Pyheensilta Stage (Ka P) have so far not been
identified on Kemiönsaari, although some of the settlement sites at the altitudes of
the Late Comb Ware shoreline or below must date back to this period. Kemiönsaari
would in principle present a good opportunity to conduct research on the various
phases of the Comb Ware Period as well as the Neolithic proper, as there are
numerous settlements at varying elevations in a relatively small area. This would
make possible local comparisons of settlement remains from different periods. For
example, all the main settlement phases from the Late Mesolithic to the Late Bronze
Age can be found within a radius of about one kilometre in the area of the villages
of Söderlångvik and Hammarsboda in Dragsfjärd.
During the Subneolithic Stone Age the islands of Parainen were also inhabited.
The oldest known settlement site in this part of the archipelago is Fagervik,
which is presumably connected with the Pyheensilta Stage, although identifiable
decorated ceramics have not been found from the site (Asplund 2000: 14-25). The
site, however, is better dated than most archipelagic settlement sites. A traditional
radiocarbon dating of charcoal from a hearth gave a result of 4080 ± 70 BP (Su-
3244), and an AMS dated charred nutshell the result of 4060 ± 45 BP (GrA-14033).
A calibration of the dates gives a result of ca 2880-2460 cal BC. The utilisation of
the investigated part of the settlement site thus occurred some time during this
timespan. This is the earliest direct evidence of human occupation of the islands
of Parainen. The outer archipelago landscape then occupied by Stone Age man
resembled the environment where pioneer Stone Age settlement was established a
couple of millennia earlier on Kemiönsaari.

3.2.3. The Battle Axe Culture

In the Åland Islands – in the settlement sites of Långbergsöda in Saltvik, Trännmyra

in Sund as well as Jettböle in Jomala – there occur, among finds representing other
cultural groups, some ceramics of the Battle Axe Culture (Cleve 1948: 487; Dreijer
1979: 21-23). This, together with some battle-axe finds, indicate that Battle Axe
Culture elements have been present also in the archipelago. Finds from the Åland
Islands, however, are still rather limited (Stenbäck 1998: 95; 2003: 82). This is the case
also within the archipelago part of the study area outside Kemiönsaari where there
is only one stray find connected with this culture. This is a fragment of a battleaxe
(KM 15526), found in Parsby in Parainen. The elevation of the site is so low that
it must have been submerged during the period of the Battle Axe Culture, which
rules out the possibility of the find being part of a settlement. On Kemiönsaari
the situation is different as several finds indicate a Battle Axe Culture precence in

58
 


Storfinhofva







Söderby 


 

 Galtarby







Hertsböle

0 5 km

Fig. 13. Battle Axe Culture settlement sites (squares) and other sites on approximately 25-
29 metre elevations (dots) plotted against the 25 metre contour line, representing the sea
level sometime between 3000-2500 BC.

59
the area. This is interesting as the settlement sites of the culture are generally less
confined to the coast than those of the Comb Ceramic Culture. It has traditionally
been thought that the archipelago and the utilization of marine resources did not
have great significance for people associated with the Battle Axe Culture.
Several decades ago, a whole battle-axe was found in Mattkärr in Kemiö and
two halves in Stenmo (KM 10925; KM 14538; KM 19232:7; Asplund 1997: 237).
In addition, some symmetrical axes without shaft-holes have been found, some
of which presumably belong to Battle Axe Culture artefacts. However, no clear
indication of Battle Axe Culture settlement in Kemiönsaari was found until 1986,
when small, well fired chamotte-tempered fragments of pottery were discovered at
Söderby in Dragsfjärd among the finds of a Stone Age settlement site (TYA 363:4).
The next finds connected with the Battle Axe Culture appeared in 1988, when
ceramics of the culture were found at Storfinhofva in Dragsfjärd and at Galtarby
in Västanfjärd (Fig. 13). The Storfinhofva finds consisted of a few quartz flakes and
eight fragments of pottery, three of which (TYA 474:1, 2) are gray and weathered;
the other five (TYA 474:2, 4, 5, 7) are brown, of denser clay material and contain
chamotte. The latter ones resemble the Corded Ware of the Battle Axe Culture. The
Storfinhofva finds were found rather high, approximately 35-40 metres above the
present-day sea level, which would suggest that the settlement site was not situated
at the shoreline. It would in fact appear that the settlement site is connected with
a swamp to the north of it, which in the past was probably part of the present-day
lake of Lemnästräsket. In test excavations at the Galtarby site fragments of at least
one embossed vessel (TYA 478:20; Asplund 1997b: 238) were found in addition to
fragments of comb-impressed pottery. According to the contour lines of the basic
map, this settlement site was situated on a hillside that sloped gently northwards
towards the bottom of a bay opening to the east.
A test excavation was also performed on the settlement site at Söderby in 1995.
While the purpose was to collect material on Battle Axe Culture in particular, the
few ceramic finds of the excavation are connected either with the Jäkärlä Group
or with the period of the late Comb Ceramic Culture; in fact no traces of a Battle
Axe Culture settlement were found. Since the fragments of pottery found earlier
nevertheless have to be associated with the Battle Axe Culture, one interpretation
may be that a Comb Ceramic settlement site was situated at Söderby which was
visited by people who had adopted Battle Axe Culture elements – either during the
original use of the site or after it was abandoned. A similar situation would appear
to have occurred at the settlement site of Senatsberget in Hertsböle, Dragsfjärd,
surveyed in 1996 under the direction of Marja Sipilä; at this site, in addition to
ceramics belonging to the Jäkärlä Group or the late Comb Ceramic Culture, dense
reddish fragments of pottery were also found that were interpreted as Battle Axe

60
Culture ceramics. Two different kinds of ceramics also appeared at Storfinhofva.
Such observations are not uncommon in the settlement sites of the Comb Ceramic
Culture on the mainland either (e.g. Carpelan 1973: 195; Huurre 1995: 74). For
some reason Battle Axe Culture artefacts have often ended up in layers of Comb
Ceramic settlement sites, either left behind by the population of the Comb Ceramic
Culture or when another population has exploited a previously settled area. The
relationship between these cultures is unclear. In Finland the Battle Axe Culture
has traditionally been considered to have arisen as a result of immigration, but
some arguments have also been put forward supporting theories of population
continuity (Luoto 1987; Asplund 1995: 73-74; 1997b: 239; Lang 1998; 1999c: 328-330;
1999d: 364-367; cf. Künnap & Lang 2000: 59).
All in all, the Battle Axe Culture settlement sites of Kemiönsaari support the
view that the population of the culture could also have inhabited the archipelago.
Battle Axe Culture settlement sites in marine environments are sparse in general,
but there is a noteworthy resemblance to the situation south of the Gulf of Finland,
where a number of settlement sites and cemeteries have been found on the large
islands of Estonia (Kriiska 2000: 70-71). Although the few known bone finds do not
as yet provide reliable evidence of this, it is likely that fishing and possibly other
marine hunting was practised from these archipelagic settlements. At the same
time, however, we should keep in mind that the Kemiönsaari archipelago during
the time of the Battle Axe Culture already had rather large land areas that would
certainly have allowed cultivation and the keeping of livestock. As the settlement
sites identified in the archipelago are situated on the largest islands it thus seems
possible that the Battle Axe Culture may have practised the same main means of
subsistence in the archipelago as well as on the mainland. The means of subsistence
utilized remains uncertain. Varying views have been presented, as direct evidence
is insufficient.
In studying the locations of Battle Axe Culture settlement sites in Dragsfjärd and
Västanfjärd, no common denominator could be found that would have indicated
the reasons behind the choices of location. The settlement site of Söderby most
resembles the location familiar from the Comb Ceramic Culture, a hillside sloping
south, but in this particular place the gentle slope may have been attractive, not
as a good beaching spot, but for its shore meadow. The lakeside location of the
Storfinhofva settlement site also differs from the Comb Ceramic coastal settlement
sites. Furthermore, both the Storfinhofva and the Galtarby settlement sites are
situated on hillsides sloping north, which is not considered a typical feature of
Comb Ceramic settlement sites. The topography of the settlement sites would
therefore appear in the archipelago to indicate a tradition divergent from the Comb
Ceramic Culture or a different subsistence strategy too.

61
 







 













 


















 




 














 





















 


 













 





 















 Settlement site





 Uncertain settlement site



 Settlement site
0 20 km 




 Cemetery
 Uncertain settlement site





 Stray
 find

Fig. 14. Battle Axe Culture sites with known locations in the study area.

An evaluation of the material related to the Battle Axe Culture from the rest of
the study area indicates no clear tendencies toward coastal settlement apart from the
Kemiönsaari sites (Fig. 14). It must be remembered, however, that due to changes
caused by shore-level displacement, some of the mainland sites have probably also
been situated quite close to the seashore during their time of use. This has also
been suggested regarding some Battle Axe Culture stray finds from Sauvo, all of
which seem to have been found
along the ancient shoreline (Luoto
20
1990b: 22, Kuva 6). In general, the
10
distribution of sites shows a pattern
2
roughly similar to the general
distribution of Stone Age sites
presented above; in other words,
Battle Axe Culture sites have been
found in areas where Stone Age
sites in general have been found.
0 20 km This pattern probably has some
significance related to the large
Fig. 15. Number of Battle Axe Culture stray finds scale topography of the area, i.e.
according to municipalities. the area of the Piikkiönlahti and

62
Paimionlahti bays in the NW part of the study area, the Halikonlahti bay in the east
and the large islands of Kemiönsaari in the south.
In closer detail the distribution of sites seems to be a product of the ways in
which archaeological research has been conducted in the area. The distribution
of Battle Axe Culture stray finds (Fig. 15) resembles the overall distribution of
Stone Age stray finds presented earlier, and suggests that Perniö as well as Kemiö
were areas utilized by people of the Battle Axe Culture, even though no assured
settlement sites have been found so far. The stray finds taken into account (85
occurrences) were mostly battleaxes and a couple of shouldered axes. In connection
with the examination of Battle Axe Culture stray finds, the distributions of finds of
symmetrical (94 occurrences) and asymmetrical (94) stone axes were also compared,
as four-sided symmetrical axes are often assigned to the Battle Axe Culture. The
two types showed almost identical distributions. No further conclusions, however,
could be drawn from this, as the calculation depends above all on how the axes
have been described in the archival sources and, furthermore, symmetrical axes
also occur in Comb Ceramic contexts.

3.2.4. The Kiukainen Culture

The Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Kiukainen Culture of the coastal area
of southwestern Finland was distinguished as a separate culture phase in the
beginning of the 20th century (Ailio 1909: 93). Settlement sites of the Kiukainen
Culture have also been found in the Åland Islands (Meinander 1984c; Stenbäck
1998; 2003: 83, 92-93; cf. Lucenius 2004). On the Kemiönsaari island the first
settlement sites of this phase were found in the 1940’s at Jordbromalmen in the
village of Kärra in Dragsfjärd and at Knipängsbacken in Söderlångvik. After that
the next find of a Kiukainen Culture settlement site occurred at Nedergård in the
village of Östermark in Kemiö in 1985. Nowadays there are also known settlement
sites dating back to the same period in Hammarsboda in Dragsfjärd, in the village
of Branten in Kemiö and in Österbacka in Östermark (Fig. 16).
In evaluating the survey results concerning Late Neolithic settlement sites in
the comparative study area, it can be observed that only a relatively small number
of sites have been identified (Fig. 17). One problem is that so few sites on the
mainland coast can be identified on the basis of ceramics. As identification on the
basis of elevation above sea level pertains only to coastal sites, there may be a bias
regarding potential non-coastal settlements. In addition to the areas settled earlier,
the Nauvo archipelago in the western part of the study area now shows up on the
distribution map. Only one Kiukainen Culture stray find is known from this part of

63
 
















0 5 km

Fig. 16. Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age settlement sites plotted against the 20 metre
contour line, representing the sea level around 2000 BC.

64
the archipelago – a simple shaft-holed axe (KM 7995:15) from Parainen – but within
the small area of Nauvo, Parainen and Rymättylä (outside the study area) there
are no fewer than ten sites which might be classified as Late Neolithic settlements
(cf. Asplund 2000: 31-35). These sites, at approximately 20-30 metre elevations, are
hardly contemporaneous. It is also possible that they are not all proper settlement
sites. However, together they form a geographically consistent group of sites
indicating settlement during the very last stage of the Comb Ceramic Culture, the
Kiukainen Culture or the Bronze Age. It is not possible to present more exact dates
without closer investigation of the sites, except for the Koupo Rösbacken site in
Parainen, with a radiocarbon date of 3630 ± 35 BP (Ua-34666), i.e. 2130-1890 cal
BC, as well as the Simonby settlement site in Nauvo, where the find material (TYA
608:1-4; TYA 652:1-4) provides a basis for dating (Asplund 2000: 35-37). The stone
items found at Simonby all represent forms without traits characteristic of a specific
period, but the pottery has some features indicative of the age of the site. Some of the
pottery fragments are porous and have a smooth surface, while others have a harder
clay mixture without porosity and a slightly striated surface. The only decorated
piece (TYA 652:4) shows a round pit impression. The finds from Simonby can be
interpreted as belonging generally to the Kiukainen Culture, but chronologically
they may equally well extend to the Bronze Age, as indicated by the striated ware.















 




 






















 

 






 




 




 



































 






 







 














 Settlement site

 Uncertain settlement
Settlement site site








0 20 km
 Cemetery








 Uncertain settlement site
 Stray find


Fig. 17. Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age settlement sites in the study
area.

65
 Preliminary information regarding
20
a site called Storängen in Nauvo
10
might also be mentioned, lying at
2
an elevation less than 20 metres
above the present-day sea level; the
find material (KM 32005) consists of
quartz- and stone flakes and a stone
with an unfinished hole (Hellsten
1998). Despite the evidence of stone
0 20 km technology, the elevation suggests
that this site belongs to the Bronze
Fig. 18. Kiukainen Culture stray finds according Age rather than the Stone Age.
to municipalities.
Artefacts pertaining to the Kiu­
kainen Culture include among other things simple shaft-holed axes, narrowbladed
axes, and asymmetrical axes and chisels (Meinander 1954a: 76-103). Two simple
shaft-holed axes have been found in the village of Östermark in Kemiö: one
probably from the settlement site situated in Nedergård (KM 19747:2; Asplund
1997b: 241) and the other from the settlement site of Österbacka (KM 12702;
Meinander 1954: Abb. 39-40; Asplund 1997b: 241). In addition, a typical Kiukainen
Culture asymmetrical axe or chisel with a segmental cross-section (KM 17625) has
appeared as a stray find in Pederså in Kemiö. On the comparative map showing the
stray find distribution according to municipalities, simple shaft-hole axes, narrow
bladed axes and Kiukainen type chisels have been assembled (Fig. 18). It should
be noted, however, that some of the simple shaft-hole axes evidently belong to
the Bronze Age (Meinander 1954a: 78-85; Kriiska 1998). The number of finds is
not large, but it may suggest that the activity area of the Kiukainen Culture has
nonetheless been the coastal zone, as Piikkiö, Paimio, Sauvo, Kemiö and Perniö
show a slightly greater number of finds than municipalities closer to the inland.
The Kiukainen Culture is a somewhat problematic period in this study, as
the settlement site materials seem to cover part of the Bronze Age (Meinander
1954a: 186; Siiriäinen 1969; 1974; Carpelan 1973: 196; 1982: 269-270). There is still
no inner chronology of the Kiukainen Culture based on, for example, ceramics.
There is, however, reason to believe that the youngest Kiukainen Culture
phase is contemporary with the Early Bronze Age, which makes more detailed
interpretations of settlement site chronology difficult. For this reason the Kiukainen
Culture settlement is equally a problem of the Bronze Age.
Cairns in close connection with some of the Kiukainen Culture sites, such
as Jordbromalmen and Hammarsboda in Dragsfjärd as well as Östermark in
Kemiö, might suggest such continuity or contemparaneity between the Kiukainen

66
Culture and the Bronze Age (Asplund 1997b: 245-246), but there may also be other
explanations. One is simply that cairns could have already been built during the
Neolithic (cf. Okkonen 1998; 2003). Another interesting explanation is that cairns
could have been built not in connection with settlement, but at places of general
importance for the Bronze Age people in the archipelago. Thus the cairns on, or
very close to, the culture layers of the Kiukainen Culture sites might not relate to
cult places or funerals contemporary with the settlement sites, but to remembrance
after the sites had been abandoned.
All in all, the purpose of this survey of Stone Age materials has been to
demonstrate (within the chronological framework possible to apply) the continuity
of utilisation and settlement of Kemiönsaari from the Mesolithic to the Late
Neolithic. Kemiönsaari actually has one of the best materials for exhibiting areal
(chorological) settlement continuity inside the study area. This is probably in part
due to a generally marine-oriented economy in the study area during the Stone Age,
which made the archipelago a favourable area for settlement. However, there are
reasons to question marine hunting and gathering as the only means of subsistence
from the Middle Neolithic onward,. At the time of the Kiukainen Culture further
indications of agriculture occur, which will be dealt with in closer detail in a later
chapter of this book. It seems, however, that this new feature of subsistence did not
lead to any remarkable changes during the Stone Age. At least it did not affect the
formation of the archaeological record to any noteworthy extent – settlement sites
are the main identifiable elements in the cultural landscape of the whole of the
Stone Age. Changes, however, followed soon afterwards.

3.3. The Bronze Age transformation of landscapes

3.3.1. The general setting

In the Bronze Age, Kemiönsaari together with the nearest municipalities formed an
area of settlement, in which features of the western Finnish Bronze Age culture are
seen in several cairns (Fig. 19) and in some bronze artefact finds. Cairns appear all
along the coast northwest (as well as east) of the study area, but larger groupings
of cairns are not found until Vakka-Suomi in the northern part of Finland Proper
(cf. Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992: 12). Kemiönsaari and the surrounding area may
thus have been a comparably important settlement area in the Bronze Age. The
population density may have been higher than the average, and utilisation of the
area active. Another explanation could be that new cultural traits moved into this
area more easily than into others.

67
 




 


 
 



 


 












 

 





 



 


  

















 









 




















 














 



























 













 

 




















 















 










  



 


























 






 





















 


 







  



 

 


 

 

 

 




 












  



 







 




 














  















 



 




 

 





 

 
 





 






  
 






 
  








 










 



 


 









 



 









 

 
 










 








   


 

 












 
 




 






  






 



  
 




  

 
 


 









 

 


 






 



 



 



 





 

 









 



 


 
 





 



 



 








  






  






 





 

 




 


 


















 

 
 





 




























 




 
















 







 


 



















 
















































 

 

 





 
 

 










 











 
 


 















 
 




 








 


 




  



 









 

 

 


 


 


 














 



 






















 





 









 








 

 


  








 















 

 

 








 





 
 

 






 








 



 





 
 



 



 


 


 






 

 










 


 



 







 

 
















 





 

 




 












  


 



 

















 














 

 



 

  



















 







 


































 





 




  






















 

 












 




 










 



 




 









 
 









 




 Settlement site



Cairn
 Uncertain settlement site






 






 












 

0  20

 km 



 











Uncertain
 Cemetery cairn
 








 

 












  Stray find


Fig. 19. The distribution of cairns in the study area. The assumption is
that quite a few of these are from the Bronze Age.

Almost thirty Bronze Age bronze artefacts have been found within the study
area, which is a comparably high number, considering that only about 150 have
been found in the whole of Finland (Edgren 1993a: 128). The rarity of bronze
artefacts reveals the peripheral position of Finland with respect to the central areas
of the Scandinavian (as well as the eastern) Bronze Age culture. Another factor in
the low number of finds is certainly the fact that broken artefacts were not thrown
away, but were instead recast or traded for intact ones. Bronze was cast in Finland
at least from the Late Bronze Age onwards, but finds providing evidence of this are
rare. Apparently most of the western bronze artefacts were brought to Finland as
finished products. Metal did not yet at this stage supplant the other tool materials.
The use of stone technology continued and only few possessed bronze tools.
Despite this, it is possible to question the view that all Bronze Age metal artefacts
were luxuries. True luxury artefacts are rare, and one can surmise that, for example,
bronze axes were used specifically as axes and not just as status symbols.
Finnish finds from the Early Bronze Age (Periods I-III) (Fig. 20) consist mainly
of weapons or axes.18 Kemiönsaari is no different: a dagger dating back to the

18
Within the present study area no Period I bronze objects have been found. Such objects
are rare in Finland also in general (e.g. Siiriäinen 1984: 54). With regard to the bronze
artefacts, the Early Bronze Age therefore refers to the Perods II and III.

68
 Period Dating (cal BC) Fig 20. Bronze Age chronology, following the suggestion by
I 1700-1500
Vandkilde et al. (1996: Fig. 24). In addition to these periods the
term “Early Metal Period” is used in the study, referring to
II 1500-1300
a period comprising both the Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman
III 1300-1100 Iron Age, i.e. 1700-1 BC.
IV 1100-900
V 900-700
VI 700-500

Early Bronze Age has been found in a cairn in Långnäs and a palstave in a cairn
in Hammarsboda, both in Dragsfjärd. The period III dagger of Långnäs has a
cast handle with spiral decorations on the knob (KM 2503 A:1; Hackman 1897; cf.
Asplund 1997b: 247). It can be considered one of the finest single artefacts of the
Finnish Bronze Age. As for the palstave of Hammarsboda (KM 1910; Björck 1883; cf.
Asplund 1997b: 247), it belongs to a more common artefact type, of which there are
thirteen or fourteen finds in Finland (Salo 1984a: 152; Edgren 1993b: 130). To these
must be added at least one palstave
that was mistakenly catalogued in
the collections of the Museum of
Perniö as an iron artefact (Fig. 21).
Bronze artefacts of the Early
Bronze Age have also been found
in other municipalities of the study
area – actually in such high numbers
that the focus of the distribution in
Finland would seem to be in this
area (Meinander 1984b: Kuva 5; Salo
1984a: 165; cf. Lõugas 1985: Abb. 1).
Of the clearly classified artefacts,
thirteen are from this period, nine
of which are axes (Fig. 22). Most of
the finds are stray finds. Another
group of Late Neolithic or Bronze
Age artefacts with a similar general
distribution, and mostly found in
stray find contexts, are flint sickles
(Fig. 23). Their distribution pattern,
which is similar to that of Early
Bronze Age metal objects, perhaps
Fig. 21. Bronze axe (Perniön museo 3076). suggests a similar dating for the

69
 sickles too (Salo 1972).19 Within the
20
study area, thirteen sites have been
10 counted, with a total of sixteen
2
complete or nearly complete
sickles and one fragment; none of
them are from Kemiönsaari (Fig.
24). Some of the finds indicate that
these objects were deposited in
wetlands, probably as sacrifices.
0 20 km Such treatment of agricultural
items may be one indication of the
Fig. 22. Early Bronze Age metal objects in the growing importance of cultivation
study area. at the time.
During the Late Bronze Age
(Periods IV-VI) the focus of the
distribution of metal in Finland
moved from eastern Finland
Proper to the lower reaches of
the Kokemäenjoki and Eurajoki
rivers in Satakunta, which would
indicate a change in the processes
of the spreading of metal. One
possibility is that contacts in metal
trading had now shifted from
Southern Scandinavia to Central
Sweden, where more and more
bronze objects were beginning
to be cast. On the other hand, it
is not self evident that artefacts
picture contacts with their area
of manufacture directly, i.e. the
Fig. 23. Two flint sickles from the collection at
the local museum in Perniö (unnumbered and different distribution patterns may
Perniön museo 46:1). also have other reasons.

19
A few flint sickles or sickle-like objects are known also from the eastern and northern
parts of Finland. Such examples are a crescent-shaped object (KM 19239:709) from the
Vaateranta site in Taipalsaari (Räty 1995: 168-169) and a sickle-like object from Oikarainen
in Rovaniemi (Kotivuori 1996: 79-80).

70
 One so-called Mälar-type axe,
common in Central Sweden, has 20

been found in Kemiö (KM 800; 10

2
Björck 1883; cf. Asplund 1997b:
247). Its precise place of discovery
is unknown. Furthermore, a
fragment of the edge of another
socketed axe has been found
(Sagalunds Museum 1001). A
broken Mälar-type axe has also 0 20 km

been found in Västanfjärd (KM

11588). Some additional Late Fig. 24. Flint sickles in the study area.
Bronze Age metal artefacts have
been found in other parts of the
20
study area (Fig. 25). Altogether
10
ten typologically datable finds 2

have been discovered, eight of

them axes. Two of the finds – a
spearhead probably belonging
to the Ananjino culture, found
in Perniö (KM 9138:2; Salmo
1980: Kuva 26) and one so-called
Maaninka-type axe, found in 0 20 km

Paimio (KM 10454; Kivikoski

1937a, Kuva 1; Meinander 1954b: Fig. 25. Late Bronze Age metal objects in the
study area.
Tafel 10:a) – are the only eastern
Early Metal Period artefacts identified within the study area. Although small in
number, the Bronze Age metal finds illustrate the continued utilisation of the study
area, Kemiönsaari included. This is, of course, evident also with reference to the
large number of cairns and some settlement sites in the area, but the chronological
reliability of these is not always as good as that of the metal objects.

3.3.2. Cairns

Contrary to Bronze Age metal artefacts, cairns – many of which in all probability
datable to the period – are common in southwestern Finland. The total number of
cairns in the coastal areas of Finland has been estimated to a number of at least 10,000
(Tuovinen 2002a: 66; cf. Salo 1992: 6), over 3,000 of which have been systematically

71
surveyed (Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992). However, not all of them belong to the Bronze
Age; cairns were still built during the Iron Age and in some cases even during the
Historical Period. Another question that has emerged especially in connection with
investigations conducted in Ostrobothnia is whether the building of cairns actually
started as early as the Stone Age (Okkonen 1998; 2003). In the light of a couple of
such indications from other parts of Finland, the possibility of Late Neolithic dates
cannot be excluded in the coastal area of southwestern Finland either.
A new opportunity for dating cairns was provided by AMS-dating made from
burned bones. For example, some datings from inland cairns in central Finland has
been made, the results ranging from the Late Stone Age to the Late Roman Iron Age
(Taavitsainen 2003a; 2003b). The Late Neolithic dating 3570 ± 60 BP (GrA-18302),
corresponding to the calibrated date 2130-2080 or 2040-1740 cal BC from Pyykkisaari
in the municipality of Viitasaari is obviously the most interesting one (regardless of
the fact that the dated bones are not human bones). This result questions the former
theory that the cairns of the inland were a result of influences from the Bronze Age
cairnbuilding tradition on the coast (e.g. Salo 1981: 224-226; cf. Edgren 1986: 21).
From the point of view of the study at hand, one coastal cairn excavated by Henrik
Jansson in Tammisaari (Sw. Ekenäs) in the province of Uusimaa (Sw. Nyland), east
of the present study area, is even more interesting. This cairn yielded both quarts
flakes and flint arrowheads of a type with straight base – artefacts that can be
dated to the end of the Stone Age or the Early Bronze Age (Taavitsainen 2003a:
17; 2003b: 38-39; Jansson 2005: 67). These examples suggest that there might be
reason to generally rethink the start of the cairnbuilding period and also consider
the possibility of local cairn building traditions instead of categorically attributing
the cairns to western Bronze Age influences. So far the indications of early cairn
building are, however, too few to permit any conclusions on this regarding the
study area. The only Stone Age (partly maybe Bronze Age) finds from a cairn within
the present study area – pieces of pottery and bone fragments in a cairn excavated
at the Jordbro site in Dragsfjärd – most probably belong to a cultural layer under
the cairn (Asplund 1997b: 243; cf. Tuovinen 2002a: 173). It has been suggested that
pieces of one striated pot differing from the Late Neolithic settlement site material
may have belonged to the cairn (Meinander 1954a: 60; 1954b: 110-111). There is,
however, no specific reason why this find would not belong to the same context
as the other pieces of pottery, i.e. originating from the cultural layer underneath,
indicating a possible site continuity into the Bronze Age. Whichever is the case, the
bone finds are also most probably from the settlement site layer; this is supported
by the fact that the bones are from seal (Tuovinen 2002a: 35-36).
Before 1988, a total of 250 cairns had been excavated in Finland, 114 of which
have been dated one way or another; of these 57 % belong to the Bronze Age and the

72
rest to the Iron Age (Vuorinen 2000a: 181). This suggests the Iron Age as an almost
as important cairnbuilding period as the Bronze Age. This conclusion has also been
reached by Tuovinen (2002a) regarding the cairns in the archipelago. Using several
dating criteria – stratigraphic (involving artefact finds), cemetery chorological and
group analogy (where a cairn morphologically resembles a previously dated cairn
type) – he has been able to date 31 cairns within his research area. These can be
divided into two groups – one Bronze Age group (P) of seven cairns and one Iron
Age group (R) of 24 cairns. Comparing different variables of the cairns themselves
as well as their surroundings revealed that distinct differences between the groups
P and R are found in the stone cover of the cairn, the convexities of the burial
place, and the height difference to the highest top (Tuovinen 2002a: 191-195). These
variables divided the cairns into the proposed group in the ratio 8 (P) / 23 (R).
One of the P-group cairns was originally dated otherwise, but could according to
Tuovinen (2002a: 194) also belong to the earlier group.20 When the group-consistent
variables were used to divide the total number of cairns within the research area, 147
cairns were attached to group P and 218 cairns to group R. According to Tuovinen
(2002a: 195), this shows that more than half of the cairns in the archipelago are of
Iron Age character. A comparison with shore zone datings shows that only two of
the P-group cairns must be younger than the Bronze Age; in the younger group 58
cairns occur on Iron Age or later shore-levels, 26 of which must be younger than 50
AD (Tuovinen 2002a: 195-199).
In the present study area there are 758 cairns, 118 of which have been registered
as uncertain; the corresponding figures for the main municipalities of Kemiönsaari
are 222 and 20. This is roughly in keeping with figures presented earlier (Tuovinen
1990a: 38; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992). Seventeen of the Kemiönsaari cairns
have been investigated by archaeological excavations, twelve of them by Volter
Högman already in 1886. Two cairn sites were investigated later in Söderby near
the settlement site of Jordbro in Dragsfjärd in 1935, 1979 and 1988, but produced
very few observations. In connection with the research conducted by Tuovinen five
cairns in the archipelago were excavated, one of which – Östergård 2 in Dragsfjärd
– on Kemiönsaari. In addition, two cairns were excavated in Makila in Kemiö
in connection with this study. The Makila cairns have have provided Iron Age
radiocarbon dates, and also the Östergård 2 cairn must (due to altitude) be later
than the Bronze Age (Tuovinen 2002a: 100-101).

20
This particular cairn is situated at the Makila Östergård settlement site in Kemiö, most
probably dating from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The site and the cairn are presented in
chapter 3.5.3.

73
 The only previously dated cairns on Kemiönsaari with Bronze Age dates are
the aforementioned ones from Långnäs and Hammarsboda in Dragsfjärd in which
bronze objects have been found. Both date to the Early Bronze Age. In connection
with this study one AMS-dating was made from burned human bone (KM 10108:1;
Tuovinen 2002a: 40, 173) from the cairn excavated 1935 in Söderby in Dragsfjärd.
The result 3000 ± 35 BP (GrA-22355) gives the calibrated ranges 1380-1120 cal BC,
roughly corresponding to the end of Period II or Period III of the Bronze Age. This
means that the Söderby cairn is about the same age as the two cairns dated by the
bronze artefacts. The dating also corresponds to the only previously radiocarbon
dated cairn in the southwestern archipelago – the Trollberget cairn in Houtskari
(Sw. Houtskär), outside the study area. The charcoal dated in the Trollberget case
gave the result 2990 ± 140 BP (Hel-1143; Jungner & Sonninen 1983: 72), i.e. 1550-800
cal BC. The burial at Trollberget has been considered one of the oldest cremations
in Finland (Tuovinen 2002a: 181).21
The Early Bronze Age dating result obtained at Söderby is somewhat surprising
as the cairn seems to lack features usually connected with Early Bronze Age cairns.
It was, for example, rather small and situated on a slope in relatively low terrain.
The elevation of 24 metres above sea level (Tuovinen 2002a: 40) is, however, quite
enough to allow an Early Bronze Age date. According to the excavation report, the
cairn was damaged before the excavation, but road workers reported that the cairn
had been very low – just slightly above the ground – before it was broken. The
excavator, Ella Kivikoski, estimated the diameter to be about 4 metres (cf. Tuovinen
2002a: 40). In Tuovinen’s (2002a: 308) division, the cairn has ended up in group R,
i.e. the Iron Age group, showing the big posterior probability of 0.99 for belonging
to this group. This indicates that there may be problems regarding the system of
classification, i.e. cairns in group R may actually date to the Bronze Age. On the
other hand, the cairn should probably have been left outside the calculation, as the
knowledge of the original stone cover and shape of the cairn is vague.

21
To these datings one further corresponding date from human bone from an inland cairn
in Pyhäsaari in the rural municipality of Jyväskylä (Taavitsainen 2003a; 2003b) can be
added. The result 3010 ± 60 BP (GrA-18301) gives the calibrated ranges 1410-1040 cal
BC. This dating further underlines the (late) Period II or Period III datings related to
cremation. It may also indicate that cremation in cairns is coincident inland and on the
coast. The oldest Finnish cremation burial found so far is, however, from a grave below
ground. The grave excavated at Hangaskangas, near the town of Oulu, contained a
Neolithic bronze dagger, four stone arrowheads with straight base, bone arrowheads
etc. and has been dated to 1940-1730 cal BC (Okkonen 2003: 231; Ikäheimo et al. 2004:
5-8). Even older cremated bones have been found at the Vaateranta site in Taipalsaari,
dated to the Typical Comb Ceramic Period. These bones may also be related to the use
of fire in mortuary ritual (cf. Katiskoski 2004: 118).

74
 30

20

Width (m)
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Lenght (m)

Fig. 26. Relationship between length and width of 356 cairns

in the study area.

Most cairns within the study area have a round or elliptical form (Fig. 26). In
addition, cairns whose length is considerably greater than their width are known
from the southern part of Dragsfjärd. Such long-cairns, with a length at least three
times their width, also occur in Nauvo and Parainen (Tuovinen 1990a: 40; 2002a:
158-161; cf. Asplund 2000: 40-41). Corresponding forms are also known from the
shores of the Gulf of Bothnia (Okkonen 1998: 45-47, 81-83; 2003: 120-121) and the
coast of Uusimaa (Jansson 2005: 67). All of the long-cairn sites in Ostrobothnia were
situated close to the shore-line about 1800-1400 cal BC, i.e. in the end of the Neolithic
or the Early Bronze Age, whereas round cairns occur more frequently on younger
shore-lines; there are, however, a couple of round cairns too on similar elevations as
the long-cairns, i.e. potentially as old (Okkonen 2003: 111-112; 120; 237). The dating
according to the relative length of the cairn is still rather problematic as there are
also indications of long cairns dating to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Tuovinen 1980;
2002a: 159). No inclusive reason for why some cairns have an oblong form has
been given. One suggestion is, that some cairns were made longer by successive
extensions (Salo 1981: 171-172).
One exceptional structure within the study area is a stone setting at Koupo
Rösbacken in Parainen, which according to a preliminary mapping seems to form
a construction dozens of metres long connected with a cairn (Nyberg 1985: 34-35).
Nowadays, the stones are overgrown by vegetation, making it difficult to interpret
the construction in closer detail. A test trench dug through the construction in 2007
revealed that the width of the low stone setting was about 3.5 metres (Fig. 27).
Underneath the bottommost stones a few tiny fragments of burned bone (TYA
843:49-55) were found. The radiocarbon date obtained for the bones is 1220 ± 30
BP (Ua 34665), which gives the calibrated result 690-890 cal AD. The construction
has in this study been classified as an Iron Age cairn as this appears to be the most

75
 24,0 m

23,5 m

505       

504       

503       
295 296 297 298 299 300 301

0 1m

Fig. 27. Test trench through a long stone setting at Koupo Rösbacken in Parainen. Cross
section and surface.

likely interpretation so far (although stratigraphically the stone setting could, in

principle, be younger than the dating). This does not necessarily mean that the
construction should be compared with the above mentioned long-cairns. In fact,
good parallels for the exceptionally long stone setting at Koupo, running across a
slightly sloping terrain and partly built of comparably small stones, are missing.
The relationship (physical and chronological as well as mental) with other cairns
registered on the same hill is so far indistinct. If the long stone setting runs directly
towards the biggest cairn at the site, as indicated on previous maps, this can hardly
be a coincidence. Regardless of the dating of the big cairn, the Iron Age stone setting
could be seen as associated with the cairn, maybe making a symbolical link to the
(probably earlier built) monument.
The fact that cairns have been rebuilt or extended is occasionally revealed by
inner structures. Stone circles, such as, for example, those found in a cairn excavated
by Volter Högman in Ytterkulla in Dragsfjärd (Cleve 1942: 15), probably mark the
original border of the cairn before later extensions. Secondary stone coffins and bone
accumulations may also serve as evidence of the rebuilding of cairns. Sometimes
also the vicinity of the cairns has been shaped. This is something often ignored.
Smaller stone formations in connection with cairns have been interpreted as the
remains of small cairns or accumulations arising from the demolition of cairns. An
example within the study area is Ilmusmäki in Salo, where a formation identified
as a small cairn (Hirviluoto 1991: 222; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992: 87) is in fact the

76
remains of a short stone-paved lane in front of a large cairn. Another example is
the case of Iron Age cairns excavated in Makila in Kemiö (chapter 3.5.3), where
it actually seems that more emphasis has been put on the preparation of the site
of the cairn than on the actual monument. Such constructions indicate that it was
not the content of the cairn alone but also the place around the cairn that was of
importance. Probably cairns were not erected just to hold a burial, but to mark a
site that had other meanings and functions as well.

3.3.3. Graves or not?

Bronze Age cairns can, at least to some extent, be regarded as graves, considering
that many of them undoubtedly contain remains from burials. Defining and
identifying a “grave” in archaeology is, however, not unproblematic (e.g. Kaliff
& Oestigaard 2004). When the practice of erecting cairns was introduced, burial
customs were probably still similar to those of the Stone Age. They may have
included inhumation burials dug into the ground, or some other form of interment
leaving no trace of the body. In some of the presumably oldest cairns coffins made
from stone blocks have been found; these maybe contained burials, although no
bones have been preserved. Such structures were also found in the Kemiönsaari
cairns investigated by Högman. For example in the famous ‘dagger grave’ at
Långnäs there was a tapering elliptical arrangement of stones, in which the dagger
was found; a simple coffin-like stone arrangement also appeared in a cairn in Tjuda
in Kemiö (Cleve 1942: 12, 15). During the Bronze Age the use of fire as an element
in the burial ritual became more common. Unlike unburnt bones, cremated bone
fragments tend to be well preserved. The linkage between actual burials and cairn
building is stressed by the fact that burnt bone has been found in no less than 80 %
of the cairns excavated (Vuorinen 2000a: 182).
In Tuovinen’s (2002a) study on the southwestern Finnish coastal cairns they
have been regarded explicitly as burial monuments as can be concluded already
from the headline of the book: “The Burial Cairns and the Landscape …”.
Tuovinen (2002a: 77) uses the term ‘burial cairn’ regarding stone settings that have
contained human remains, or regarding stone- and boulder formations resembling
them externally.22 The interpretation is supplemented by a general discussion on
mortuary rituals, providing indicia for the use of burial monuments made of stone

22
The field archaeological criteria used in the surveys were based on elimination of stone
heaps that can be explained as occurring due to natural processes (mainly shore effects)
or other human activities than burying (Tuovinen 1993: 38-40; 2002a: 77-80; Vuorinen
2000a: 180-181).

77
(Tuovinen 2002a: 61-66). Some interesting topics of this discussion are, for example,
how the grave could be regarded not only as a remainder of the deceased, but as a
symbol of temporal continuity, and how the permanence of a grave built of stone
may have preserved the cultural meaning of the grave site. The grave or grave site
is furthermore seen in the context of its surrounding landscape (Tuovinen 2002a:
67-74; 2005a: 14-15); this is of importance as the cairns are, according to Tuovinen,
typically situated in close relation to “milieu dominants”, establishing a link
between the meanings attached to the burial cairn and the symbolic content of the
landscape. Meanings extending the pure function of a grave have also been stressed
by Okkonen (2003) regarding the Osthrobothnian cairns. According to him, cairns
may – regardless of them originally being used for covering a burial – have had
many functions and meanings. The cairn monuments were erected mainly for the
society of the living and the meanings of the cairn may have changed through time
and in different social contexts (Okkonen 2003: 126-127, 237). Cairns can thus not
be seen simply as graves. Okkonen (2003: 126-127) also points out the problem
of identifying cairns as burial monuments. For example, the Osthrobothnian long
cairns have so far not yielded any proof of them being graves.
In a discussion of the relationship between cairns and Bronze Age burial ritual,
it is essential to point out two significant factors: first of all, there are too few
cairns to allow the conclusion that everyone was buried in this way, and secondly,
the cairns evidently contain only some of the bones from the funeral pyre. With
regard to estimations of the size of the population reflected by the cairns, it can be
supposed that the Bronze Age cairn building period may have lasted approximately
a thousand years and that the cairns could have included, for example, five
individuals on average – according to observations from excavations, generally
fewer. If we apply a 40‰ death rate in the calculation, which is the figure generally
used in population estimates of prehistoric societies (e.g. Ambrosiani 1964: 204;
1973; cf. Lang 1995b), the total population of the communities that buried their
dead in cairns in the whole of coastal Finland would have been 375-1250 people
(when using the aforementioned total numbers of cairns). These numbers seem
rather low, considering that the calculation must be regarded as giving a theoretical
maximum. In addition to the mortality rate the calculation is greatly affected
by the estimated number of burials per cairn; this number is most uncertain, as
archaeological evidence of multiple burials is very limited. The number of destroyed
or undiscovered cairns (cf. Harjula 2000) would increase the calculated size of the
community, but on the other hand, the period over which the cairns were erected
extended into the Iron Age, which would make the burying period much longer
than the estimate applied in the calculation. Thus it can be concluded either that
the Bronze Age coastal population was surprisingly small, or – more likely – that

78
only part of the population is reflected by the cremated bones found in cairns.
The rest may have been buried in Stone Age fashion, maybe even cremated, but
deposited in a way leaving no archaeological evidence. There were certainly also
local differences, meaning that in certain areas cairn building and rituals related to
the cairns were more dominant than in others.
It is more difficult to explain why only some of the bones of the deceased are
found in the cairns (cf. Kaliff 1997: 86, 90). This is one fact that challenges the idea
of Bronze Age cairns being simply graves. One possible explanation is that this is
due to natural processes operating during cremation and after the burial. Another
possibility is that this was deliberate. Only some of the bones were placed in the
cairn and the rest were deposited in some unknown way. If this is the case, the
deposition of bones in the cairn was merely one part of a multifaceted ritual, with
other meanings than the primary burial of a deceased person (Bolin 1999: 63, 86).
In a number of cultures that practise cremation, the burning of the dead has
been considered as a way of freeing the soul or spirit from the body (Kaliff 1997:
81-83; Kaliff & Oestigaard 2004: 93). It is possible that a similar belief may have
already existed during the Stone Age and Early Bronze Age before the introduction
of cremation, the idea then being that the spirit had departed when the body had
decomposed or had been separated from the bones. Cremation was another way
of reaching the same state. Freeing the spirit was most likely the very core of the
burial ritual. In that sense the deposition of a few of the bones of certain individuals
in cairns was secondary. This does not imply that the cairn ritual was unimportant,
on the contrary, but it probably had a meaning beyond the common burial ritual
and the cairns a function other than being simply shrines to house burials. We may
rather assume that it was the erection of the monuments that was essential. It was the
interest in the place or landscape of the cairns that was significant. The construction
of cairns and the deposition of some bones in them was a manifestation of the
kin group’s or tribe’s symbolic control over places and territories. The cairns were
thus related to control and manipulation of the landscape. They were primarily
built for the living – not for the deceased. This does not exclude the idea that the
cairns and their surroundings, through the bones of the ancestors, became places
for communication between the living and the dead, between the known world
and that beyond.

79
3.3.4. Cairn size

One way of describing cairn size is to use a theoretical figure for volume, obtained
by multiplying the dimensions of the length, width and height of the cairn. This
figure, adequate for comparisons, naturally does not give the actual volume of
the cairn but the volume of the smallest rectangular body inside which the cairn
will fit.23 When the material is shown as a diagram, some outliers (due perhaps to
incorrect measurement data) can be seen, but otherwise the distribution illustrates
the fact that there are numerous cairns that are markedly larger than average (Fig.
28). A group of cairns with a ‘volume’ of over 500 m3 was chosen for more detailed
analysis.

5
500
4
Height (m)

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Area (m2)

Fig. 28. Relationship between area (length x width) and height,

dividing cairns according to a theoretical figure for volume. The
dividing curve for cairns with a ‘volume’ over 500 m2 has been
added.

The size of cairns has previously been discussed in Finland mainly in relation
to chronology and social structure. Large cairns are often considered older than
small ones, an assumption which gains support from the comparison of the size of
excavated cairns dated to the Bronze Age versus the Iron Age (Tuovinen 1990a: 60;
Vuorinen 2000a: 182). In the chronological division by Tuovinen (2002a: 194), the
mean values of the area of the stone cover differs; cairns in group P are larger than
in group R. Usually large cairns are above all connected with the Early Bronze Age,

23
Tuovinen (2002a: 185) has pointed out that volume may be an inaccurate measure for
cairn size as its numeric value is greatly dependent on the height of the stone setting;
instead he has used the product of length and width, i.e. a figure related to the area of
the cairn. This is, of course, not unproblematic either; a flat stonesetting can give the
same sizefigure as a cairn made of several layers of stones.

80
but there are (outside the study area) also examples of large cairns erected later,
during the Late Bronze Age. In Norrland in Sweden there are in fact indications
of a dating as late as the Roman Iron Age (Bolin 1999: 83-84). On the other hand,
the aforementioned Söderby dating from Dragsfjärd indicates that not all cairns
erected during the Early Bronze Age were big. Cairn size is therefore a chronological
indication merely statistically, reliable only on average.
Large cairns have also been regarded as expressions of the higher status and
power of certain individuals or families in the Bronze Age society. These ideas
are based on the assumption that the cairns are burial sites representing certain
individuals or kinship groups. An equally plausible idea would be that cairns
have to do with important places rather than important people. We can speculate
whether the bones in the cairns may actually represent the whole community or kin
groups of the builders of the cairn rather than particular individuals or families. In
Sweden, large cairns have also been included in the discussion concerning centre
and periphery in the Bronze Age. The occurrence of extensive cairns has been
one criterion for identifying central areas (Wigren 1987). The large Finnish cairns
might straightforwardly be interpreted in a similar way. Actually this is an analogy
drawn from our contemporary society, where investment in the shaping of the
landscape mainly occurs in towns or other settlement concentrations. Furthermore,
the occurrence of large cairns is not necessarily related to an exceptionally large
community or labour force; during the historical era, individual farmers have
produced clearance cairns and other forms of stone heaps very comparable with
Bronze Age cairns (Ambrosiani 1987: 9).
In southwestern Finland, large cairns generally occur in areas characterised
by the occurrence of smaller graves as well. In the archipelago big cairns mostly
occur on large islands and typically there are other, often large cairns in the
immediate vicinity (Tuovinen 2002a: 157). The possible connection with nearby
settlements remains unclear. A comparison of the locations of all Late-Neolithic and
Bronze Age sites in the study area with the locations of cairns shows no obvious
correlation. This might be partly due to the weak chronology of both settlement
sites and cairns, preventing more detailed comparisons. The few sites datable to
the Late Bronze Age actually indicate a closer relationship with cairns than the rest
of the settlement site material. Not even in the Late Bronze Age cases, however, is
there always a contact between settlements and cairn clusters. Within a couple of
kilometres from the northernmost settlement site at Toispuolojannummi in Paimio
only three small cairns are present. Some of the large cairns, on the other hand,
are situated in the vicinity of known settlement sites, but not all of them. If large
cairns – or cairns in general – signify something, it is probably not the settlement
site itself. It is more likely that the importance of some other aspect of the place is

81
indicated. Furthermore, cairn size must depend to a considerable degree on the
amount of suitable stone material available in the vicinity. Cairn size is a function
of the importance of the place, access to raw material, availability of labour, and
time.

3.3.5. The cairn in the landscape

Apart from being a difficult question in general, the relationship between cairns and
settlement sites has in earlier research been further distorted due to interpretations
regarding the character of Bronze Age Scandinavian immigration to the Finnish
coast. According to one view the local population would in some areas have rejected
the Scandinavian immigrants as well as the cairn ritual. Part of the immigration and
settling (as well as cairn building) would thus at first have been directed towards
areas not utilised by the local (Finnish) people represented by the settlement sites of
the Late Stone Age Kiukainen Culture (e.g. Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 69). This
interpretation suggests that there would be no link between some of the identified
Late Stone Age and Early Bronze Age settlement sites and the first Bronze Age
cairns. In other words, some settlement sites would be related to Late Stone Age and
Early Bronze Age people rejecting the cairn ritual whereas there would possibly be
other sites settled by the cairn builders. The Turku area (outside the present study
area) as well as Paimio have been mentioned as examples of areas where cairns are
not found in the vicinity of the Bronze Age settlement sites due to the rejection of
the new influences (Salo 1984a: 170; 1984d: 184). This is, however, not a convincing
explanation as cairns occur some kilometres away and no other settlement remains
related to the supposed builders of the cairns have been found. A much simpler
and more believable explanation would be that the cairns were built by the same
people settling on the Kiukainen Culture and Bronze Age sites we know of. There
could be other reasons than rejection why cairns were not necessarily built close to
the settlement sites.
According to a common explanation, the monuments (apart from being
related to status definition) have also functioned as markers related to ownership
of land and to proprietorship rights in areas of exploitation (Salo 1981: 125-131;
1984a: 133-137; cf. Tuovinen 1985: 72-73; 2002a: 247). Thus, cairns could have been
built far away from settlement sites in areas where proprietorship was not self
evident and not always close to the settlement itself, where such a signalling of
proprietorship would not have been necessary (Asplund 1997a: 42-43). According
to this interpretation, cairns could in many cases be situated far from settlements,
symbolically connecting people from the settlements with areas and places of

82
importance. Areas with many cairns would thus indicate places or areas of special
significance – interpretable in terms of activity areas or border zones (cf. Asplund
2000: 50, 84) – not excluding the possible existence of settlement sites close by, but
stressing an indirect relationship between the location of cairns and the locations
of settlement.24 This idea – or more specifically the notion that the cairns would as
a rule have been constructed in the wilderness – has been criticised by Tuovinen
(2002a: 249-250). He has, for example, pointed out that there are several examples
of settlement sites that are close to or even surrounded by cairns.
One common notion regarding cairns is the underlining of the eternity of the
cairn site, the construction of a cairn maybe signifying that the builders were
eternally bound to the place or landscape. The site can be regarded as continuous
also in a more tangible sense: the finishing of a cairn did not end the use of the cairn
or the area surrounding the cairn. On the contrary, it probably initiated the process
of ritualisation of the location. The erection of the cairn accentuated the importance
of the site, which later became visited on many occasions – from generation to
generation (Tuovinen 2002a: 66) – never going out of use (Okkonen 2003: 237). These
places were probably often visited and used for rituals; the cairns were tended and
"activated" (Bolin 1999: 55-68), and were sometimes also enlarged or supplemented
by the erection of other cairns close by. Archaeologically, the continuity of the
cairns can be seen in the form of extensions which were added and in secondary
accumulations of bone. Although the basic idea about the cairn site as eternal
and continuous is most reasonable, there might be reason in the future to rethink
continuity regarding long-term time spans. What was, for example, during the Late
Iron Age the attitude towards Bronze Age cairns and cairn building in general? Does
Iron Age cairn building really represent an unbroken continuity from the Bronze
Age, or could Iron Age cairn building in some cases be a revitalisation or copying
of older cairns – a reaction towards, or rediscovery of, the old monuments?
During the first important period of cairn building, the Bronze Age, it really
seems that the conception of the world emphasized different meanings to different
places. Regardless of whether the cairns are placed on a reconstruction of the Late
Neolithic / Early Bronze Age shoreline (Fig. 29) or compared with the Late Bronze
Age / Pre-Roman Iron Age shoreline (Fig. 30) one can see that they emphasise

24
The fact that the location of cairns does not show the location of settlement has been
stressed also by Anders Carlsson (2001: 29-30), with special reference to the situation on
the island Gotland in Sweden. There the cairns are situated on the coastline, while other
sites are evenly distributed throughout the island; according to Carlsson the location
of the cairns must be explained in some other way, partly taking into account routes of
communication.

83
 
 





 

 












 















 



 

 














 



 









 






  



 


 



 
 



 



 
 





 



 


 
 


 
 





 


 
 









 
 
 


  
 

 
 
 



 








 






 
 



 
  

 


  
 



  
 


  






 




 

 



  
 
  
 
 
 




 



 
 








 









 



 


 



 







 
 

 



 











 

 


































 0 5 km
 


 











Fig. 29. Location of (all) cairns (uncertain cases presented as circles) plotted against the 20
metre contour line, representing the sea level at around 2000 BC. Some cairns are related to
a SSW-NNE passage through Kemiönsaari.

84
particular locations – “milieu dominants” if using the terminology applied by
Tuovinen (2002a). There is a clear tendency towards marking islands, promontories
and bays – landmarks for seafaring people. Wigren (1987: 109-125), working with
material from Sörmland in eastern Sweden, has considered the possibility that
Bronze Age cairns were connected with travelling routes – especially sea routes –
and that they may also have functioned as orientation markers. This is probably an
overly physical and simplified view of the function of cairns. Cairns were certainly
erected along travelling routes as well as border zones and activity areas, but it is
doubtful whether they were visible from the sea. This has actually been studied
and proved wrong by Tuovinen (2002a: 248-250). According to him, there is a
general overestimation of the visibility of the cairns – they cannot have been used
for marking out waterways, nor as signals to an outsider approaching from land.
Thus, the marking of special places in the terrain had a symbolic meaning. The
conception of the world of Bronze Age people was related to these places, and the
cairns affixed human beings to the landscape and into the world. In addition to the
cairn sites being situated in places topographically distinguishable in the landscape,
the choice of location could also involve ideas of these places being liminal places
or boundary zones where mountain met with water or where mountain met with
sky (Thedéen 2004: 33-41).
In the study by Tuovinen (2002a; cf. 2005b) a difference in the location of cairns
of different age has been suggested – not only regarding the topography, but also
regarding the view from the cairn site. Using viewshed analysis on elevation models
Tuovinen (2002a: 202-243) has been able to show that cairns in the Bronze Age
group P were more directed towards land (the area of visible sea being only 5-14
times larger than that of visible land) whereas cairns in the Iron Age group R were
directed towards the sea (the area of visible sea being 3-39 times larger than that
of visible land). Tuovinen (2002a: 243-244) has considered land and sea as possible
symbolic representations of subsistence strategies, the archipelago landscape thus
becoming a sort of taskscape; the cairns of group P might therefore relate to the
desired success of cattle and farming, while the landscape of cairns of group R
may be due to reduced risks within agriculture. These interpretations, based on the
statistical treatment of the material, seem mostly plausible. As the result means that
cairns in group R indicate a more marine milieu than the Bronze Age cairns, the
importance of a marine economy may well have been significant for the location of
some of the Iron Age cairns. Regarding the Bronze Age cairns, on the other hand,
the amount of visible land (regardless of the difference when compared with that
of group R) is also rather small, i.e. the cairns are nonetheless situated in a milieu
where the marine element dominates. It would thus seem quite possible to stress
the marine element also regarding the Bronze Age cairns.

85
 
 





 

 












 














 



 

 













 



 









 





  



 


 



 
 



 



 
 

 



 



 


 
 


 
 





 


 
 









 
 
 


  
 



 
 
 



 
 







 






 

 



 
  


 


 
 
 


  
 

 


 


 
















  
 
  
 
 
 




 



 
 





















 




 


 



 









 







 









 

 


































 0 5 km

















Fig. 30. Location of (all) cairns (uncertain cases presented as circles) plotted against the
15 metre contour line, representing the sea level at around 500 BC. The former passage
through the main island was at this level closed due to land uplift.

86
 Whatever the interpretation for the location of the cairns it is evident within the
research area that attitudes towards space and places must have changed during the
Bronze Age. This may partly have been due to a changing conception of the world, as
remote areas became known in connection with the bronze trade and new contacts
brought foreign influences to the Finnish coast. It is in no way evident that cairn
building reflects above all a religious change or an increase in social stratification,
as has often been suggested. New religious practices can perhaps be traced during
the Bronze Age with the introduction of cremation, or in the Late Neolithic and
Bronze Age when flint sickles and bronze objects began to be sacrificed. On the
other hand, we have no knowledge as to whether or not some stone artefacts from
the previous periods were sacrificed in the same manner. Furthermore, changes in
religious practices did not necessarily involve fundamental changes in beliefs.
There is also reason to be critical concerning the overall interpretation of cairns
as belonging only to a leading elite of the society. This has been examined also by
Tuovinen (2002a: 251-252) who is critical of interpretations based on “conceptual
constructions of territoriality and manifestations of patriarchal power”, i.e. he
is questioning the cairns both as territorial markers and as representations of a
stratified society. According to him, the cairns are remains of a mortuary culture
and should be approached primarily from a religious point of view – the Metal Age
communities he sees as fairly local and egalitarian.25 Whether the cairns actually
are indicative of social stratification is really a good question. Within the study
area only the Långnäs dagger from Dragsfjärd, found in a grave structure in a
large cairn, seems to support the idea of an elite using bronze objects for status
definition being buried in cairns to manifest their power and position in society.
The rest of the material is not especially indicative of a stratified society. Bronze
axes cannot automatically be described as status objects just because they are rare
archaeological finds, and cairns with small amounts of deposited bones do not
necessarily represent actual burial monuments built for particular individuals.
The primary reason for building cairns may have been the strengthening of
the connection between cairn builders and place by creating eternal signs of this
connection. One interesting possibility suggested by Tuovinen (2002a: 252) is

25
It is interesting to note how (in a somewhat different, but still Metal Period context)
Lang (1999a; 2000a: 24-26, 316) has also pointed out, with reference to Eliade (1987) that
“ancient man was first of all, Homo religiosus”. At the same time, however, Lang interprets
the role of territorial strategies and proprietorship rights as highly important regarding
the erection of monuments and in the general organization of the cultural landscape.
It is quite likely that both religious and social relationships may be intertwined in the
construction of monuments.

87
thinking of the landscape as “ancestral transformation”, where ancestral action
was fixed all the time into the landscape; instead of merely signing proprietorship
of land the builders may not have thought in terms of possessing land or sea,
but as being “integral and dedicated to the land and the sea”. Attractive as this
sounds, it is difficult to agree with. Although the material indications of obvious
social stratification are limited, this does not exclude the possibility of a general
increase of social complexity in some other sense. The introduction of farming and
intensified trade during the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age probably promoted
the change of attitudes towards land and resources. The idea of the relationship
between humans and landscapes could thus just as well have been the opposite.
The former idea of human beings dedicated to land and sea may have begun to
change towards an idea of land and sea belonging to people, i.e. land ownership
or territorial dominion. The gradually increasing impact of farming may have
been most significant, leading to changes in attitudes towards the landscape, as
human beings began to shape their environment to a greater degree than before. In
a society where the marine element still was very significant, the Bronze Age choice
of places for communicating both with the world of the living and with the world
beyond still seems logical. The sea was not only a provider of subsistence and an
element for mobility within the known world – probably it was also an important
element in the cosmology.

3.3.6. Bronze Age settlement sites

Bronze Age settlement sites in the area of the western Bronze Age culture of
Finland have been considered difficult to investigate. One reason is the previously
mentioned gradual transition from the Kiukainen Culture to the Bronze Age,
which makes it difficult to identify settlement sites from the Early Bronze Age. As
for the Late Bronze Age, the difficulties mainly have to do with the rarity of datable
material on settlement sites. Ceramics from the Late Bronze Age are identifiable
but rare. Among the reasons for the smaller amount of datable ceramics found
in excavations compared to the Stone Age could be the small number and size of
identifiable forms and decorational features, as well as a decrease in the use of
pottery, so that fewer pieces of pottery were also broken at the settlement sites. In
the following, many sites are defined by the occurrence of certain ceramic types;
these will be more closely described and discussed in Chapter 5 of this book.
The most important studies relating to the Bronze Age on Kemiönsaari have
taken place in Hammarsboda in Dragsfjärd (Fig. 31). The area is known above
all for its impressive Bronze Age cairns, situated on a plateau rising from a

88
surrounding area of fields. The cairns were first surveyed in 1886 by Högman,
who also investigated one of the cairns; it revealed a stone circle and a coffin-like
construction. Even earlier, in 1878, the Reverend Ludvig Wennerström had found
the Early Bronze Age palstave (KM 1910; see chapter 3.3.1.) in another cairn.
Hammarsboda regained the interest of archaeologists in the years 1989-90 when
finds suggesting Stone Age and Bronze Age settlement sites were found in several
places within a radius of half a kilometre from the cairns. The observations have
so far been classified into five separate settlement sites or areas, two of which
could be older than the rest, more likely dating back to the Late Comb Ceramic
period than to the Kiukainen culture. The other sites are situated slightly lower
and may date from the period of the Kiukainen Culture and the Bronze Age. In
addition, two possible cairns have been observed on one of the settlement sites.
In 1991 the University of Turku carried out a small excavation on the site
Hammarsboda 3 under the supervision of Tapani Tuovinen. Artefacts that would
make dating possible (TYA 588) were few, but the decorational elements of the
ceramics have been considered characteristic of Kiukainen Culture ceramics. A
comparison of the distribution of finds in a field with elevation above present-




Askala
Moisio



Isokylä









Lemu







Hammarsboda 










 Settlement site








Uncertain
 Cairn settlement site
0 20 km 




Cemetery


 Uncertain cairn
 Stray find


Fig. 31. Late Bronze Age settlement sites within the study area.

89
day sea level supports a Late Stone Age or Early Bronze Age dating (Tuovinen
2002a: 52). A new investigation was conducted in 1993 on the site Hammarsboda 2,
with the aim of searching for material that could be connected with certainty with
Bronze Age settlement (cf. Asplund 1997b: 252-253). The small-scale excavation
was successful; among the finds (TYA 518:15-41; 575:9; 611:1-80) is a fragment
of pottery that can be linked with the so-called Paimio type ceramics from the
Bronze Age. The fragment (TYA 611:36) has a slightly striated outer surface and
two rows of pit impressions as its sole decoration. Other fragments of pottery
show pit impressions, comb impressions, twisted cord impressions and dotted
line decorations as well as textile impressions – all features that may be connected
with Kiukainen Culture ceramics.
In the area of comparison only seven other settlement sites dating back to this
period have been registered – four of them from Isokylä in Salo. The best known of
these sites are Ketohaka 1 and Ketohaka 2, excavated in connection with the Isokylä
project by the University of Helsinki. Finds from the first-mentioned site include
Bronze Age ceramics with round impressions as well as Early Iron Age Morby
Ware (Uino 1986: 71, Fig. 3:53-54). Finds from the second site include fragments
of a Bronze Age ceramic vessel decorated with wavy lines, and fragments that
have been described as having "epineolithic" pit decorations on the brim (Uino
1986: 115, Fig. 4:23), most probably analogous with Morby Ware. This indicates
site continuity at Ketohaka from the Late Bronze Age to the Pre-Roman period,
a continuity that can be seen in materials and radiocarbon datings from several
excavations in the Isokylä area.
A third Bronze Age site at Ketohaka is represented by a cultural layer
containing ceramics with a striated surface as well as textile-impressed ware,
found under a cairn excavated in 1915. In 1978 test excavations were performed
on the same site. Hirviluoto (1991: 53) has determined some of the site’s ceramics
to be Kiukainen Culture ceramics. However, this dating is unclear; the published
picture of old finds (Hackman 1917b: Fig. 14:2) shows Paimio type ceramics with
decorations of pit impressions, belonging to the Bronze Age. A hearth that was
revealed in excavation area K, which was opened later near the site, gave an Early
Iron Age dating of 2110 ± 120 (Hel-1259), corresponding to the period 400 cal BC
– 150 cal AD, and a separate cultural layer gave two dates between approximately
1330-1010 cal BC; the ceramics from this study area however resemble Paimio
type ceramics as well (Uino 1986: 126, 129, 131, Fig. 5:5). Another cultural layer
(belonging to the fourth Bronze Age site distinguished in Isokylä) was found
beneath a cemetery at Ketomäki in Isokylä, excavated in 1916. Among the finds are
striated ceramics decorated with pit impressions, fine thin walled ceramics, a few
fragments of textile impressed ceramics, as well as ceramics decorated with "cat’s

90
paw" impressions (Hackman Site EBA LBA PRIA
1917b: Fig. 14:1; Schauman- Dragsfjärd, Kärra, Jordbro +
Lönnqvist 1989: 56; cf. Hirvi­ Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Knipängsbacken +
luoto 1991: 113, 216), the Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, Hammarsboda 3 +
Kemiö, Branten +
last mentioned shards most
Kemiö, Östermark, Nedergård +
probably analogous with
Muurla, Kirkonkylä, Jokiranta +
Morby Ware.26 Nauvo, Simonby +
In addition to the sites in Salo, Pukkila, Myllypelto +
Salo one Bronze Age settle­­ Salo, Pukkila, Pirtinpelto +
ment site has been iden­ti­­fied Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, Hammarsboda 2 + +
in each of the muni­cipalities Paimio, Askala, Toispuolojannummi + +
of Piik­kiö, Pai­­mio and Perniö. Salo, Isokylä, Ketohaka +
Perniö, Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka + +
The Tois­puol­ojannummi site
Piikkiö, Moisio, Alistalo + +
at As­ka­la in Pai­mio is actual­
Salo, Isokylä, Ketohaka 1 + +
ly the epo­nymous site for
Salo, Isokylä, Ketohaka 2 + +
cera­mics of the Pai­mio type. Salo, Isokylä, Ketomäki + +
In addition to the pot­tery Salo, Pukkila, Sinivuori 1 ? ?
there is also a bronze arte­ Pertteli, Kaukola, Kankare ? +
fact find – a Pe­riod III fibula Halikko, Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki (B) +
– from the Tois­­puol­­ojan­­­­­­num­ Halikko, Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki (SW) ?
mi site (Vanha­talo 1994). At Kemiö, Makila, Östergård +
Muurla, Suoloppi, Kotikoivunnummi +
the Moisio Alis­talo settle­
Piikkiö, Huttala, Huttalanmäki +
ment site in Piik­kiö a Bronze
Piikkiö, Runko, Koskenhaka ?
Age dating is suggested by
Salo, Isokylä, Isomäen luoteisrinne ?
some frag­ments of a vessel Salo, Isokylä, Klaavu ?
with a smooth surface (TYA Salo, Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki ?
644:4), pro­bably re­­pre­sent­ Västanfjärd, Tappo, Vesteräng +
ing Lusatian-­influenced Late
Bron­­­ze Age pot­­­tery. Ce­ra­­ Fig. 32. Table of settlement sites with Late Neolithic or
mics of the same type have Early Bronze Age (EBA) as well as Late Bronze Age
also been found at the Leh­mi­­­ (LBA) and Pre-Roman (PRIA) materials.

26
According to Hirviluoto (1991: 69-70), Bronze Age ceramics have also been found at the
Pukkila Sinivuori settlement site in Salo. The type of ceramics discovered, however, is
not mentioned; in another connection the same site has been interpreted as belonging
to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Hirviluoto 1991: 75). The case is even more doubtful, since
three flint arrowheads from Pukkila, described by Hirviluoto (1991: 37, 69) as Bronze
Age arrowheads with straight base, do not represent the type in question. Another find
from Vähäsilta in Karjaskylä, interpreted by Hirviluoto (1991: 70-71) as belonging to the
Late Bronze Age Paimio type pottery, is not convincing either; the typical decoration is
missing and the scratching of the surface described by Hirviluoto represents the surface
treatment of common Iron Age ceramics rather than the intentional rough finish which
can be seen on Bronze Age or Pre-Roman ceramics.

91
ha­­ka site at Lemu (Lemun­­kar­ta­no) in Per­niö (Lähdes­mäki 1983). At both of the last
mentioned sites Morby Ware or pottery reminiscent of Morby Ware has also been
found.
When we compare the occurrence of Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age
settlement site materials with those of the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron
Age, it seems that no such long-term site continuity can be demonstrated as was
suggested in the introduction to this study with regard to some settlement sites in
the Turku region. Within the study area there is not a single site where Kiukainen
culture ceramics as well as Late Bronze Age and Pre-Roman pottery have been found
(Fig. 32). Only two sites show site continuity from the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze
Age to the Late Bronze Age. Pre-Roman pottery, on the other hand, has been found
on five of the Late Bronze Age sites, three of which are situated close together in the
Isokylä area. It is difficult to draw any fundamental conclusion from this, except
for the fact that topographical relocations of settlements within microregions have
taken place during the long time-span of this comparison. Whether there actually
was a greater break in settlement site continuity between the Early and Late Bronze
Age than between the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Period is a question to
which this still quite limited material does not provide an answer.

3.4. The Pre-Roman Iron Age

3.4.1 Introduction

One characteristic of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Finland is that it is sparse on

datable stray finds. This is the case also in the area of this study; no single finds
have been recorded. In the light of settlement site materials it appears, however,
that Kemiönsaari was settled similarly to the other parts of the study area still
during the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Fig. 33). Two sites suggested to date to this
particular period have been found – Tappo in Västanfjärd and Makila in Kemiö,
both containing finds and other features indicating settlement in the area sometime
between the end of Bronze Age (Fig. 34) and the beginning of the Iron Age AD (Fig.
35). As these are the youngest prehistoric settlement sites identified in the main
area of interest, they must be regarded as quite important.
In the rest of the study area, Pre-Roman materials and dates have been obtained
in 21 cases. In addition to common settlement sites, a couple of hill-sites as well as
cemeteries are also present. Some of the settlement sites are marked as uncertain
mainly due to the problem of dating striated ceramics reminiscent of Morby Ware;
sites such as Runko Koskenhaka and Huttalanmäki in Piikkiö as well as a couple of

92
 Huttala


  Kaukola





Spurila





 














Moisio 














Rikala

 







 
Isokylä
Lautkankare




 





 





 Suoloppi
Korvala Pappila 




 



Pullola







 Lemu
Makila




Tappo






 Settlement site





 Uncertain settlement site


 Cairn
0 20 km 




Cairn or cemetery





 Uncertain cairn
 Hill-site



Fig. 33. Pre-Roman sites in the study area.

the Isokylä sites in Salo could equally well represent Roman Iron Age settlements.
Sites in Pertteli and Muurla, on the other hand, might be older than the Pre-Roman
Iron Age.

3.4.2. Pre-Roman sites of Kemiönsaari

3.4.2.1. Tappo

The first Early Iron Age settlement site of Kemiönsaari was discovered in 1988,
when burnt clay was noticed on the edge of a small sandpit at Tappo in Västanfjärd.
Impressions in the clay made it possible to conclude that it was burnt clay daub
from a structure of interlacing twigs. Under closer examination a few fragments
of prehistoric ceramics were found among the clay fragments. These observations
led to a small-scale excavation of the site in 1989 (Asplund 1997b: 255-258). The
excavation area of approximately seven square metres was located on the edge
of the sandpit, on a spot where a large amount of burnt clay could be seen in the
cut of the sandpit. On the north side of the excavation area a formation of largish
stones was observed, which seemed to form a construction running in a NW-SE
direction. The stones did not really seem to have been carefully set in place; rather,
the formation might have been formed in connection with clearance. It was not

93
 Makila




Tappo

0 5 km

Fig. 34. Pre-Roman settlement sites of Kemiönsaari plotted against the 15-metre contour
line, representing the sea level at approximately the Bronze Age / Iron Age transition.

94
 Makila




Tappo

0 5 km

Fig. 35. Pre-Roman settlement sites of Kemiönsaari plotted against the 10-metre contour
line, representing the shoreline of the end of the Pre-Roman Iron Age or the Roman Iron
Age.

95
possible to examine the distribution of stones more closely, which has to be taken
into account in assessing the significance of the construction. During the excavation
most consideration was given to the possibility that it was some kind of structure
formed during the clearance of the main dwelling place or its surrounding (Fig. 36).
More information on the site was revealed in 1994, when the National Board
of Antiquities performed a trial excavation in order to determine the extent of the
settlement. Observations supported the earlier interpretations concerning the stone
construction: a flat area was observed north of the excavation area of 1989, on the
edge of which the above mentioned row of stones, approximately 13 metres long,
was seen. In addition to the over-all test excavation of the area, what drew the
attention of researchers were two additional stone structures. A test trench was
dug on one of them. The structure contained some ceramics, but no other finds
or patterns that would compel its interpretation as a grave or some other kind of
specific construction. It is possible that this as well is a case of a clearance remain.
The stone formations observed so far could actually all be parts of a whole created
as a result of the same activity; all the documented stone constructions together
form an indefinite formation running in a NW – SE direction.
A few finds, mostly ceramics, were retrieved from some of the test pits made
in the area, but only near the 1989 excavation area was a coloured cultural layer

Fig. 36. Stone formation (probably a clearance heap) at Tappo.

96
revealed. The sandpit in the area had presumably destroyed a central part of the
settlement site. According to local people there had been a dark layer with soot
and burned stones visible on the side of the sandpit before the site was inspected.
This possible hearth would have been situated between the excavation areas of
1989 and 1994, but it was gone before investigation started on the site. Although
the area excavated in 1989 was small, 19.7 kilos of burnt clay were found. The clay
contained impressions formed by twigs. Measurements of the clearest ones show
that the diameter of the wood that was covered with clay was mainly between 10-15
millimetres (Asplund 1997b: 258). In addition, it was possible by means of segment
measurements to determine one arched impression to have been formed by a pole
of approximately 18 centimetres.
The distribution of the clay or other
observations in the investigated area
did not allow an interpretation of
the structure from which the clay
may have originated, but apparently
it came from a construction with
wattle and daub walls. The clay
contained one impression of a shore
type of couch grass (Elymus repens).27
In addition, the clay contained
several small impressions of cockles
(Cardium).28 The impressions give
indications of the littoral environment
from which the clay was brought to
the settlement site.
Worth noting is the almost total
lack of stone artefacts in the main
excavation area, except for two quartz
flakes; this suggests a period when the
significance of stone technology was
already small. The test excavations
likewise did not reveal more than a
few quartz flakes. The most important
finds may be two ball-shaped Fig. 37. Ball shaped querns (TYA 514:2,3)
quern stones (Fig. 37), which can be from the Tappo site.

27
Determined by Terttu Lempiäinen.
28
Determined by Ilpo Haahtela.

97
 considered as indications of
cultivation. They were found
at the bottom of the sandpit,
where they had either
slipped down or had been
thrown during the sifting of
the sand.
The ceramics material of
Tappo is very fragmentary
(Fig. 38), but represents
epineolithic ceramics and
includes fragments of two
vessels decorated with cat’s
paw impressions or other
Fig. 38. Ceramics (TYA 514:26, 32, 42, 32) from the similar impressions (TYA
Tappo site. 514:32, 38, 42). This suggests
a Pre-Roman dating for the
settlement site, which is supported by a radiocarbon date from charcoal found in
the excavation of 1989, the calibrated result of which is 400-160 BC (Fig. 39).
The settlement site of Tappo was not situated in the immediate vicinity of
the shore. Its location would appear to have been affected by environmental
requirements other than those of the Stone Age. The most natural explanation is
that the settlement site was chosen from an area suitable for cultivation and animal
husbandry. A new feature was also that the habitation created stone formations on
the settlement site itself – during the clearing of the yard, cattle pen, or cultivated
area. In addition to this it is likely that some of the cairns in the surrounding area
were built by the people living at the site. Particularly noteworthy is a group of
three cairns or stone settings, one of which has a high centre stone (Tuovinen
2002a: 52), situated approximately 150 metres SSW of the settlement site. The stone
formations do not resemble Bronze Age cairns, rather bringing to mind younger
cairns or cemeteries.29
The image created by the settlement site of Tappo resembles the general picture of
Iron Age settlement forms and utilisation of the settled area. The settlement site – the
farm – is situated on a hill, the slopes and surroundings of which were presumably
cultivated. The shore, situated slightly further away, presented the possibility of
utilising the shore meadows for grazing, and the sea offered a waterway and the

29
Within the division of Tuovinen (2002a) at least one of these cairns would belong to
group R. The posterior probabilities for the cairns belonging to group R are 0.48, 0.58
and 0.98 (Tuovinen 2002a: 314).

98
possibility of exploitation of the marine
Atmospheric data from Stuiver et al. (1998); OxCal v3.5 Bronk Ramsey (2000); cub r:4 sd:12 prob usp[chron]

Ua-12515 : 2220±50BP
environment. Subsistence was most

Radiocarbon determination
2600BP 68.2% probability
380BC (12.3%) 340BC
probably based on a mixed economy, 2400BP 330BC (55.9%) 200BC
95.4% probability
in which sources of livelihood 400BC (95.4%) 160BC
2200BP
related to cultivation had increasing
significance. Settlements were more 2000BP

stable and people probably lived in

houses or huts containing wattle and
daub structures. The cemetery or
cult site of the family occupying the 600CalBC 400CalBC 200CalBC CalBC/CalAD
farm was situated within sight of the Calibrated date

settlement. Fig. 39. Radiocarbon date from Tappo.

3.4.2.2. Makila

An indication that the Early Iron Age settlement of Tappo in Västanfjärd is not
an unique phenomenon in the prehistoric settlement development of Kemiönsaari
came when investigations could be conducted on another epineolithic settlement
site at Makila in Kemiö (Asplund 1997b: 258-259). The site was discovered in 1989.
That same year a phosphorus mapping was conducted, based on borings of soil
samples, the aim of which was a preliminary mapping of settlement traces. A year
later a trial excavation was carried out on the site. The result of the phosphorus
mapping indicated two areas of heightened contents at the top of a hillock protruding
into the field area of Makila – partly in
the same area where finds suggesting
a prehistoric settlement site were later
discovered during a systematic test
excavation. Test pits dug in the area
yielded almost solely small fragments
of pottery, all except one of which are
without decoration. The only decorated
piece is a small fragment (TYA 578:16),
on which an indefinite impression is
visible on the brim. Similar decorations
occur on Morby Ware ceramics. Some
other fragments have striated outer
surfaces, also a feature that fits the
Fig. 40. Striated pottery fragments (TYA
picture of an Early Iron Age settlement 550, TYA 578:6, 8, and 16) from Makila. The
site (Fig. 40). smallest piece is a decorated rim fragment.

99
 In 1991 a second settlement site was observed by Tapani Tuovinen and Kurt
Zilliacus approximately 150 metres from the first observations. The site was
revealed by burnt clay daub found in the cut of a ditch, almost the same way the
Tappo settlement site was discovered a couple of years earlier. Later a couple of
pottery fragments (TYA 550; TYA 794:1), one of which striated, were found on this
site as well. The settlement site may be approximately as old as the previously test-
excavated site.
Within the settlement site of Makila investigated by the means of phosphorus
sampling and test-excavation a cairn was observed. It is rather low and built
on sandy soil, which would seem to make it different from typical Bronze Age
cairns. This cairn has been discussed by Tuovinen (2002a: 182-183; 194). In his first
evaluation of dated cairns it was regarded as dating from the Early Iron Age, basing
the interpretation on the stratigraphic dating criterion, in this case the location of
the cairn within the settlement site containing Morby Ware pottery (cf. Asplund
1997b: 258-259). When variables of the cairn were compared with those of the
proposed Bronze Age (P) and Iron Age (R) groups the cairn ended up in group
P. This divergence could according to Tuovinen (2002a: 194) be explained by the
dating of Morby Ware, which could be earlier than the initially suggested dating,
i.e. from the Bronze Age. The problem with this reasoning is, however, that Bronze
Age dates of Morby Ware (cf. Edgren 1999b) are not convincing; radiocarbon dates
cannot be used for dating the Bronze Age / Early Iron Age transition and no Bronze
Age contact dates are available (Asplund 2004). It is true that the Makila site is not
particularly well dated, but still the most probable date for the fragmentary material
is the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The cairn could in principle be dated otherwise, but it
would seem more likely that the cairn and the settlement site are (more or less)
contemporary.30 Other cairns occur in the surrounding area of the settlement site,
the nearest one being situated approximately 300 metres away. This cairn is built
on bedrock, but seems to have been rectangular in shape. The shape itself does
not reliably date the cairn, but it could be one feature indicating a period later
than the Bronze Age. Four-sided cairns have been discussed as a specific group by
Tuovinen, who has concluded that the four-sided cairns in the archipelago probably
are from the Iron Age (Tuovinen 2002a: 184). According to the other criteria used

30
One way of fitting the cairn into group P could simply be stating that the cairn in
principle could be older than the settlement site layer. There might have been some
misunderstanding regarding the stratigraphy, as there is so far no evidence of the
settlement site layer extending “immediately beneath the grave” (Tuovinen 2002a: 194).
It is true that the grave appears to be situated within the area of settlement site finds but
no excavation of the cairn or beneath the cairn has been undertaken.

100
by Tuovinen the four-sided Makila cairn would, however, belong to group P. The
posterior probability of the cairn belonging to the Iron Age group R is as low as 0.24
(Tuovinen 2002a: 311).
The observations made in the Makila area complement the investigations
conducted at Tappo. Features differing from Stone Age settlement patterns can be
observed here as well. At the time of settlement, part of the low-lying field area of
Makila, comprised of clayey soil, was probably a shore meadow that had recently
arisen from the sea. The surrounding areas of the settlement site were probably
suitable for cultivation and animal husbandry. Similarly to Tappo, cairns were
situated near the settlement site. The typical structure and economy of Iron Age
settlement seems to be reflected at Makila as well as in Tappo.

3.4.3. Pre-Roman mainland sites

3.4.3.1. Piikkiö

Observations suggesting an Early Iron Age settlement site have been made in
test excavations in the area of Koskenhaka in Runko. The finds (KM 27057:1-27)
include some ceramics with a striated surface that may be considered Pre-Roman
or connected with the Roman Period cemetery in the area. Also the Huttalanmäki
site (Luoto 1989: 44-52) may belong in part to the Roman Period. This is an Iron Age
site, the finds of which (TYA 225:1-5; 253:1-150; 283:1-86) include striated ceramics as
well as flakes indicating the use of stone technology at the site. At least one pottery
fragment has decorations on the brim typical of Morby Ware. Jukka Luoto (2001: 21)
has also mentioned the site in the connection of textile ceramics. The site furthermore
contains a cemetery dating to the Finnish Crusade Period, the remains of a building,
as well as stone baulks and a ditch marking the limits of the area. Several radiocarbon
datings have been made, two of which, 2070 ± 110 BP (Hel-2255) and 1880 ± 90 BP
(Hel-2080) (Luoto 2001: 21; cf. Jungner & Sonninen 1996: 11) probably are connected
with the Early Iron Age occupation. The calibrated results are 400 cal BC – 150 cal
AD and 60 cal BC – 390 cal AD. These dating results could match the dating of the
striated (and textile impressed) pottery found, although the dated samples have not
been taken in a context directly connected with the pottery.
In the area of the villages of Huttala, Moisio and Katari there is an interesting
complex, which includes a hill-site (discussed in chapter 3.4.4.2.), a low cairn, and
a settlement site. The surrounding of the cairn, situated about 500 metres from the
hill-site, has been investigated with test excavations in order to test whether there
was a settlement site on the same spot. Fragments of pottery with a striated surface
(TYA 228:1-2), identified as Morby Ware, were found from a test pit dug on the

101
side of the cairn, and interpreted as belonging to the cairn rather than a settlement
site layer. There is, however, a settlement site close by. About 150 metres away is a
sandpit, where three hearths and a refuse-pit-like structure with burnt bones have
been found. During an excavation conducted in 1997, in addition to ceramics finds
(KM 29086:1-5), three weakly discernible depressions were observed in the terrace-
like area between the sandpit and a rock. These have not been further investigated.
During several inspections and small excavations at the site stone flakes, burned
bones and striated Morby Ware (e.g. TYA 369:2) have been retrieved as finds, as well
as fragments of smooth surfaced pottery (TYA 644:4), which could be from a Late
Bronze Age vessel. There is also a radiocarbon dating 2230 ± 100 (Hel-2571) available
from charcoal in one of the hearths, corresponding to 550 cal BC - 50 cal AD.

3.4.3.2. Sauvo

In Sauvo a few Pre-Roman sites have also been revealed. One of them, Hautvuori,
is a hill-site (described more closely in chapter 3.4.4.2). Another investigated site
is the Korvala cemetery, where excavations were conducted for several years in
the 1990’s. In addition to these, inspections and surveys have revealed Early Metal
Period finds at two sites – Kyynäräisen mökki in Pappila and Ullaskrooppi 2 in
Ristiniemi. At the Kyynäräisen mökki site fireplaces, one of which described as
a pit-hearth, have been revealed in a ditch along a road, together with undefined
Metal Period pottery. In connection with the present study a radiocarbon dating
was made from charcoal from the cultural layer, which gave the result 2245 ± 35
BP (Poz-14106), i.e. 400-200 cal BC. At Ullaskrooppi 2 only some pieces of striated
pottery have been picked up in ditches made in connection with forestation. A
more exact dating of this site is thus still lacking.
The important Korvala material consists of graves with stone constructions
– several of which tarand- or coffin-like – containing metal objects like necklaces,
bracelets, spearheads and socketed axes.31 The excavations at Korvala where
completed in 2001. During the several years of excavation 24 inhumation burials
were excavated (Schauman-Lönnqvist 2004: 14; 2006). Edgren (1999b: 329) has
pointed out that the leading ornament of the East Baltic and Finnish Early Roman

31
The Estonian tarand concept is rather complicated as it has been used for very different
types of grave structures, the main common denominator being that they contain more
or less rectangular stone constructions. In single tarand graves, and even in cases where
several cells are linked together in the typical tarand fashion, variation occurs as to the
symmetry and consistency of the stone walls. Usually the constructions have been
interpreted as burial monuments, but the most regular-shaped ones have also been
suggested to be foundations for log-built mortuary houses (Mägi 2005).

102
Iron Age – the eye fibula – is missing from Korvala, thus indicating an early
use of the cemetery. This is the same logic used earlier by Meinander (1969: 63;
cf. Edgren 1996b: 89) concerning the dating of the Pikkulinnanmäki cemetery in
Porvoo. The interpretation of the Korvala cemetery is in a way also related to the
general interpretation of the introduction of cemeteries containing rectangular
stone settings. During the last decades the dating of the Estonian tarand graves has
changed, which also may affect the dating of related grave structures in Finland.
Previously tarand graves were mainly dated to the Roman Iron Age, but later it has
been made obvious that tarand graves existed already during the Pre-Roman Iron
Age (Lang 1996). The early tarand graves of Finland have so far not been thoroughly
discussed, with the exception of some comparisions in connection with a summary
of the Estonian material (Lang 2006b: 69). It seems evident, however, that some
cemeteries, one of which the Korvala site, can be regarded as extending back to the
Pre-Roman Iron Age – maybe even to the first half of the period. These cemeteries
are characterised by the occurrence of ring ornaments, like serial bracelets. The
probability of a Pre-Roman date for serial bracelets in Finnish cemeteries has been
discussed on several occasions (e.g. Meinander 1969: 65; Edgren 1996b: 88; 1999b:
329), latest in connection with a find from Sammallahdenmäki in Lappi (Raike &
Haimila 2003: 25). Graves related to the tarand type excavated in eastern Sweden
have also been dated to the Pre-Roman Period. One example mentioned by Ligi
(1993: 14; cf. Ambrosiani 1985: 64) is a cemetery in Gärtuna in Södermanland, dated
as early as the first half of the Pre-Roman Period. Here too serial bracelets have
been found. It thus seems plausible that also the Korvala cemetery can be dated
to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Such a dating is also indicated by one radiocarbon
dating made from unburned bone found in one of the graves, with the result 410-
350 cal BC (Hela-741).32 A Pre-Roman date for the Korvala site is further supported
by a dating 600-400 cal BC (Hela-470) from burned human bone occurring in pits
found close to the inhumation cemetery (Schauman-Lönnqvist 2004: 14; 2006: 52;
cf. Purhonen et al. 2004: 136).

3.4.3.3. Paimio

Indicia of Pre-Roman settlement in Paimio have been found during excavations

carried out in cemetery A in Spurila (cf. Asplund 1985: Fig. 1). The cemetery,
situated on a hill, consists of a large field of stones, resembling a common cremation
cemetery lying level on the ground, but containing also several separate structures.

32
A piece of wool from the same grave gave the result 70-250 cal AD (Hela-742), but has
been regarded as contaminated (Schauman-Lönnqvist 2006: 52).

103
The oldest ornaments and weapons found are from the Early Iron Age, but the
cemetery was still in use in the Viking Age. Among the finds is some Morby Ware
(e.g. TYA 244:177), which could indicate early use of the cemetery or the existence of
an Early Iron Age settlement site on the same spot or close by.33 A possible settlement
continuity extending beyond the Iron Age is suggested by two fragments of flint
arrowheads (TYA 244:425) of Bronze Age type found in the cemetery. It is, however,
just as possible that the arrowheads originate from somewhere else and have been
put into the Iron Age cemetery as magical objects.
In addition to the occurrence of early pottery within the cemetery it is possible to
discuss whether some of the metal finds from the cemetery could be dated back to the
Pre-Roman Iron Age. Unfortunately the material – comprising, for example, some
interesting Roman Period objects – is unpublished, with a few exceptions (Luoto
& Asplund 1986). When discussing chronology, the grave construction interpreted
as the oldest one (5) is of special interest. It seems that the first construction would
have been erected on the highest point of the hill after filling a ditch-like groove in
the bedrock with stones. After that, a stone construction was made, resembling a
rectangular cell about one metre wide and over two metres long (Fig. 41). The walls
of the construction were not fully preserved, which makes the interpretation of the
symmetry and finish as well as the length of the construction somewhat uncertain.
Best preserved were the sidewalls. Part of the bottom of the cell had been covered
with pieces of flat sandstone. Some sandstone slabs had also been put upright
against the sidewall. The size and finish of the construction could indicate that it
was meant for an inhumation burial. At the time of excavation the construction
(together with other constructions in its vicinity) was cowered by a layer of stone
and earth, not more than a few tens of centimetres thick. The layer contained burned
bones and was rich in finds, including (close to the rectangular structure) one eye
fibula (TYA 244:397, 399), two shepherds crook pins made of bronze, pieces of
neckrings and bracelets, finger-rings, pieces of bronze chains, glass beads etc. The
whole layer seemed mixed, i.e. the finds are probably the result of several burials
or depositions of objects on the same spot, the use of which according to the fibula
started not later than in the Early Roman Iron Age.
Acquiring a more precise dating of the cell interpreted as the primary
construction is problematic due to the accumulation of finds in the layer covering
the cell. It is difficult to understand which artefacts may have been associated with
the first burial or deposition. During the excavation, four finds were found at the
bottom of the cell, close to the bedrock or on the sandstone slabs within the cell.
These finds – a tiny socketed axe (TYA 244:301), a sickle-knife (TYA 244:303), a

33
Luoto (2001: 21) has mentioned Spurila also in connection with finds of textile
ceramics.

104
 Fig. 41. Stone constructions at the Spurila A cemetery in Paimio. Construction 5,
the bottom of which partly covered with sandstone slabs, on the left.

small spearhead (TYA 244:309) and a bronze bracelet (TYA 244: 385) – were at that
point interpreted as probably related to the first (inhumation) burial at the site.
The iron objects (Fig. 42) are badly preserved, preventing the examining of details.
The most interesting object is the sickle-knife, of a somewhat unusual form with a
broad blade and straight edge, but still clearly a representative of the sickle-knifes
typical for the Early Iron Age especially in Estonia. Even in a fragmentary state
the Spurila sample evidently belongs to the early sickle-knife form 1, probably 1a
(Laul & Tõnisson 1991), where the tang is a continuation of the blade and turns
downward.34 More recently the Estonian sickle-knives have been regarded as older
than earlier expected, originating from the early Pre-Roman Iron Age, although
staying in use until the Early Roman Iron Age (Lang 2000b: 122). An early dating –
even back to the Pre-Roman Iron Age – would thus be a possibility also concerning
the Spurila sickle-knife. The other iron objects would not disagree with such a
dating either. If so, the cell-construction could be considered a kind of parallel to
the constructions at the Korvala cemetery in Sauvo.

34
At the time of excavation the broken ends of the sickle-knife were found in situ. Only
the end of the tang was missing (judging from the shortness of the preserved part).
Unfortunately the loose pieces were lost during conservation. The pieces are mentioned
in the documentation of the conservation process (Vanhalinna 2317) and they were
also photographed prior to conservation. The location of these photos is, however, not
known. At present, the form of the object is thus known only in the form of a sketch in
the find catalogue.

105
 Fig. 42. Iron objects from the bottom
part of structure 5 at the Spurila A
cemetery in Paimio. The sickle-knife
is presented in the form of a drawing
included in the find catalogue.

Unfortunately the whole scenario falls apart if the bracelet (Fig. 43) is considered
part of the combination of finds connected with the primary construction. The
bracelet belongs to a group of band-shaped bracelets with rounded ends (Ge.
Bandförmigen Aarmringe mit runden Enden) occurring frequently in, for example,
southern Latvia and Lithuania, where they are traditionally dated to the Late
Roman Iron Age, although thick and narrow samples (not comparable with the
Spurila find) already occur in the second century AD (Moora 1929: Tafel XXI: 2-
4; 1938: 375-381). The Spurila bracelet lacks the typical rim or furrows running
from end to end of the bracelet, which are characteristic of this type, but is instead
decorated with groups of ring-stamps, consisting of three rings in a row. Regardless
of the difficulty of finding a parallel to this decoration pattern the bracelet must be
dated according to the general dating of this group of bracelets to the Late Roman
Iron Age. A combination of this type of bracelet together with the sickle-knife is
thus unexpected. The bracelet is also most probably younger than the eye fibula

Fig 43. Late Roman Iron Age

bracelet found within structure 5 at
the Spurila A cemetery in Paimio.

106
found in the layer covering the cell. The
eye fibula represents the youngest form
of the so-called Prussian series (Moora
1938: 62-65; cf. Salo 1968: 91-92; Kivikoski
1973: 19, Tafel 1:2) usually dated no later
than 200 AD.35 This means that it is not
possible to regard the bracelet as related to
the primary use of the stone construction
and, accordingly, there is also reason
to questions the possibility of linking
with certainty any other objects with
the primary structure. The construction
can only be regarded as a Pre-Roman
or Roman Period construction, the
original content of which has become
disturbed during continued use of the
same location during the Roman Period.
The bracelet evidently does not belong to
the primary set of objects, while the iron
objects may or may not have been part of
the original deposition. The combination
of a weapon and a sickle-knife is quite
possible – another plausible combination
of a spearhead and a sickle-knife in fact
occurs in the same cemetery (Fig. 44).
These objects were found close together
in an unclear context named structure
2. The objects were probably deposited Fig. 44. Spearhead and sickleknife found
together, but it is unclear whether close together in the Spurila A cemetery
in Paimio.
structure 2 represents a construction
related to a burial. The sickle-knife (TYA 244: 289) is of the type 1a (Laul & Tõnisson
1991) and the spearhead (TYA 244: 290) represents a general Early Iron Age type
– II a3 according to Salo’s (1968: Abb. 92; cf. Kivikoski 1973, Tafel 7: Abb. 47)
classification.
In a discussion on the establishment of Iron Age settlement within the Spurila
area also another of the altogether three Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries can be
mentioned. This is the Spurila E cemetery (cf. Asplund 1985: Fig. 1) reliably dated

35
This type of fibula has a narrow upper part lacking ring decoration and a spiral made of
flat tread.

107
to the second century BC at the latest, a dating, which is indicated by a sharply
profiled brooch (Luoto 1985: 451, Fig. 4: AA). From this cemetery no epineolithic
pottery has been reported, but there are a couple of early radiocarbon dates from
a layer of charcoal interpreted as the remains of a pyre within the cemetery. The
dates are 2110 ± 140 (Hel-1968; Luoto 1985: 454), corresponding to the calibrated
date 500 cal BC - 250 cal AD and 2170 ± 60 BP (TKU-021; Pihlaja & Haihu 1991),
corresponding to the calibrated date 390-50 cal BC. The ranges of the first date are
too wide to make it really useful, but the other may suggest some kind of activity
also at this site prior to the Roman Iron Age.

3.4.3.4. Halikko, Salo and Pertteli

In section B of the Iron Age Rikala complex in Halikko, Bronze Age or Early
Iron Age ceramics have been reported from the excavation area III in 1978. One
fragment (TYA 105:101) is said to have impressions resembling the so-called "Morby
impression". In addition, the base level of a flat cremation cemetery excavated the
same year yielded some brick-red – possibly secondarily burnt – striated ceramics, a
few pieces of which seem to be decorated with indistinct impressions (TYA 105:308,
315). The pottery, reminiscent of Morby Ware, may indicate Early Iron Age use of
the area, i.e. far earlier than indicated by the cemetery finds dated on the basis of
artefacts to the Merovingian Period.
In the Salo Isokylä area, in addition to the Ketohaka and Ketomäki sites
containing Morby Ware mentioned before, some other indications of Early Iron
Age settlement have also been found. A cultural layer and two hearths were found
in 1971 on the edge of a sandpit on the northwest slope of the Isomäki hill. The
ceramics of the site are so-called "epineolithic" striated ceramics, which might be
dated to the period before the Iron Age AD. However, according to Uino (1986:
133), a radiocarbon date of 1800 ± 110 (Hel-1186) from one of the hearths suggests
that the site dates from the Roman Period. The probability ranges of the dating
are wide, but the interpretation may be plausible as the dating corresponds to
the calibrated age span 50-550 cal AD, the period 120-390 cal AD giving a 64.1
% probability.36 Three other datings have been made from charcoal found in test
excavations in the same area, the results of which are 1890 ± 90 (Hel-1624), 1850 ±
100 (Hel-1623) and 1690 ± 120 (Hel-1622) (Uino 1986: 133), i.e supporting an Iron
Age AD dating for the site.
Also at Vanutehtaanmäki in Isokylä a couple of radiocarbon dates may suggest
the existence of Early Iron Age settlement. One of these is the dating result 1820

36
Uino (1986: 133) has mentioned the dating 50-280 AD.

108
± 90 BP (Hel-1761), corresponding to the calibrated time span 1-420 cal AD, from
under a low cairn. This dating has been interpreted as possibly connected with a
settlement site (Hirviluoto 1991: 212). Another radiocarbon dating from another
cairn, the result of which 2270 ± 90 BP (Hel-1759), corresponding to the calibrated
dates 800-650 or 550-50 cal BC, has been interpreted in a similar way. All in all, the
Isokylä area is – due to intensive investigations carried out by the Salo project in the
1970’s and 1980’s – the best place within the study area where an areal (chorological)
continuity (partly even topographic continuity) of settlement from the Bronze Age
to the Early Iron Age can be discussed using both archaeological material and
radiocarbon dates. The main impression is, that there is an unbroken continuity.
Somewhat further away to the north from the best-investigated sites in Isokylä
there is one more site called Klaavu, where remains of a possible Early Iron Age
settlement site has been registered. According to Hirviluoto (1991: 75-76, 205),
striated ceramics and a sandstone disk have been found in a field, and the site
is presented in connection with Pre-Roman settlement sites. In the same Pre-
Roman connection also settlement site 1 of Sinivuori in Pukkila appears. At this
site "epineolithic" ceramics have been found, some of which are textile-impressed
(KM 6378:5). The finds also include "a fragment of a Scandinavian flint saw" (KM
10490:10), which most probably is a fragment of a flint sickle. Pieces of clay daub
(KM 19740:1-7) have also been found on the site; this has been seen as indicative of
a clay-overlaid wall of interlacing twigs, possibly from a Bronze Age or Early Iron
Age building (Hirviluoto 1991: 75-76, 200). It is doubtful whether there is enough
material for such a conclusion, but evidently also the Sinivuori site shows evidence
of Early Metal Period settlement – whether it can be classified as Pre-Roman is,
however, uncertain. It could as well be a Bronze Age site.
The northernmost site in the Salo area is the Kankare settlement site in Pertteli,
situated right on the boundary between Salo and Pertteli. The site is on the Salo
side also known under the name of Kynttelkoski. From this site there is a flint sickle
stray find (KM 10014). During the survey of 1965 there were several quartz flakes
to be seen in a sandy field and prehistoric ceramics were found at the edge of the
field. The ceramics – unfortunately without any description in the literature – have
been dated as Pre-Roman (Hirviluoto 1991: 68, 205).

3.4.3.5. Muurla and Perniö

A low stony mound partly intersected by a road and with a centre stone in the
middle was noted during the survey of 1963 at Riihenmäki in the Pullola village
in Muurla. The soil by the stone construction contained charcoal. Fragments of

109
pottery were found around the centre stone, three of which (KM 15957:3) have
"cat’s paw" patterns. The pottery can most probably be identified as Morby Ware.
All fragments apparently originate from the same vessel. In addition, some pieces
of burnt bone (KM 15957:1) and a few small crumbs of rust (KM 15957:2) were
found. In connection with the same survey, some quartz was found in a field at
Kotikoivunnummi in Suoloppi; weathered ceramics, which seemed to have had
textile impressions, were found at the edge of a sandpit in the same area. According
to the landowner, his sisters had earlier found a fragment of ceramics in the same
sandpit, which had "images of cat’s paws" on it. If Morby Ware can be regarded
as indicative of the Pre-Roman Iron Age, probably both the Riihenmäki and the
Kotikoivunnummi sites suggest settlement in Muurla at the time – the Riihenmäki
site probably representing a (burial) cairn. The Kotikoivunnummi site may, judging
from the occurrence of quarts and textile-impressed ware, also have a slightly older
settlement history.
The Lehmihaka site in the village of Lemunkartano in Perniö was already dealt
with in connection with the Late Bronze Age. This is one of the sites suggesting site
continuity from the Bronze Age to the Pre-Roman Iron Age, the Iron Age dating
of which is indicated by ceramics reminiscent of Morby Ware (Lähdesmäki 1983:
100). The main part of the Lehmihaka pottery is extremely fragmentary and it is
not possible to identify typical Morby Ware in the material. There are, however,
features in the material, like impressions of indistinct form (e.g. TYA 158: 51) and
the occurrence of impressions on top of the rim (e.g. TYA 207: 66), which probably
indicate a site continuity including the transition into the Iron Age. This would
be in accordance with the interpretation of the cairns at the site. These are mostly
regarded as belonging to the Bronze Age, with the exception of the low cairns or
stone settings 11 and 12, dated to the Bronze Age – Iron Age transition, and cairn
13, shaped like a low stone setting, which has been regarded as belonging to the
Iron Age (Lähdesmäki 1987).37

37
On top of and on the side of cairn 13 pieces of iron slag were found. They were regarded
as probably younger than the cairn, but the possibility of the slag being related to the
cairn (which included also a find interpreted as a small crucible) was also considered
(Lähdesmäki 1987: 27-28). Later the slag was dated using pieces of charcoal in the slag.
The result 90 ± 110 (Hel-2572; Jungner & Sonninen 1996: 77) confirms that the slag is
recent.

110
3.4.4. Early Metal Period hill-sites

3.4.4.1. Fortifications or something else?

Hilltop sites, mostly referred to as hill-forts or fortified settlements, is a category

of sites occurring in many areas around the Baltic, being quite common also in
southwestern Finland, including the present study area. There are a total of 20 sites
registered as hill-forts within the area, nine of which are marked as uncertain (Fig.
45). The uncertain cases must really be regarded as dubious as the classification
is mostly based on topography or placenames whilst no constructions, nor any
artefacts, have been confidently identified at these sites. The eleven cases regarded
as assured all have stone constructions sealing off parts of the hill; some of them
also have yielded archaeological finds. The main questions regarding the hilltop
sites are related to the chronology and function of these sites: when where they
used and for what?
According to Luoto (1984: 166; cf. 1980) there are three main phases of utilisation
of hill-forts in Finland: 1) the Late Bronze Age and the earliest Iron Age (1000-400
BC), 2) the middle of the Iron Age (400-800 AD) and 3) the end of the Iron Age and













 




 







 




 


 




 
 




 









 











 
 










 






 






















 Hill-site
0 20 km





 Uncertain hill-site

Fig. 45. Hill-sites – usually classified as hill-forts – within the study area.

111
the early Middle Ages (the 11th century until the 14th century).38 This result refers
especially to the investigations of the hill-fort Vanhalinna in Lieto (outside the
study area), but also to a comparison of all hill-forts in Finland and Eastern Karelia.
Later Taavitsainen (1990; 1999b), basing his research on partly the same material,
has presented a different view. According to him, hill-forts in Finland came into
use during the Crusade Period and remained in use throughout the early Middle
Ages and in some cases even later. He notifies, however, that also an Early Metal
Period stage of occupation can be found on some hill-forts. Regarding the time-
span of special interest for this study the initial period of use of hill-sites is the most
interesting, as the choice of sites and activities performed at them may comprise
important information about Early Metal Period society. This has for example been
pointed out by Olausson (1995), working with a material from the eastern part
of Central Sweden. He has connected the development and use of Early Metal
Period hill-sites with political geography, suggesting hill-sites as one possibility of
identifying social organization and different socio-political groups.
One problem regarding the interpretation of the early hill-sites in Finland is
that reliable datings are available from so few of them. One established case is the
Hautvuori hill-site in Laitila (outside the study area), sealed of on one side by a low
stone construction, where textile impressed pottery has been found (Appelgren
1891: 44-48, Kuva 27; cf. Luoto 1980: 63; 1984: 156, 161). When C. F. Meinander (1954b:
184-185) dealt with the site, he interpreted the stone construction as younger than
the pottery. According to him the pottery could be dated to the Bronze Age and the

38
The most problematic of these periods is the middle one. According to Luoto (1984: 164;
1990a: 62-66), there is evidence of a markedly increase in activities related to hill-forts in
both Sweden, the East-Baltic area as well as Finland during the Migration Period when
at the same time – the end of the sixth century AD – hill-forts were taken into use in the
southern part of the Baltic and in the whole area of the Western Slavs. In addition to
the Vanhalinna hill-fort, Luoto (1984: 163; 1999) mentions two Finnish sites – Rapola in
Sääksmäki and Kauttua in Eura – dating to this period, both of which are dated on the
basis of only one artefact. The finds datable to the period in question are a fragment of
a spearhead (ango) (KM 12405: 1) from Rapola and a fragment of a battle knife (sceax)
(KM 11638:5) from Kauttua. Both of the finds are slightly younger than the proper
Migration Period, i.e. they belong to the Merovingian Period. In addition to these two
cases Taavitsainen (1990: 127-128, 140-141) has listed Merovingian Period finds from
other sites as well, however rejecting all the dates due to conflicts with local settlement
history and natural-scientific datings, interpreting single old artifacts – including those
from Vanhalinna – as scrap metal collected for reuse. In the case of Rapola Taavitsainen
(1999b: 139-143; cf. Luoto 1999) has suggested a dating in accordance with three
radiocarbon dates to the Middle Ages. The quantity of use of hill-sites in Finland during
the Migration and Merovingian Period is thus uncertain. In addition to the problematic
single artefacts found on some hill-sites there are, however, a couple of radiocarbon
dated cases – Nakolinna in Paimio (Luoto 1990a) and Rikala in Halikko (see below)
supporting such datings.

112
stone construction to the Late Iron Age. The late dating of the stone construction
is not supported by any finds at the site, just by a general idea of hill-forts with
stonewalls belonging to the Late Iron Age. This is a problem concerning all of the
early hilltop sites in Finland as the stone constructions themselves are difficult
to date; some early activities on hilltop sites can be identified, but whether these
activities were directly related to building stone fences sealing off the hills is not
certain. On the other hand the idea of findless hill-sites with stone fences belonging
only to the Late Iron Age or the Middle Ages is just as unfounded; in principle
there is as a good possibility that many “hill-forts” actually could belong to an
earlier period.
In addition to the Hautvuori hill-fort, Luoto (2003) has discussed the nearby
Kirkenlinna hill-fort and a stone construction at Vähä-Kuuvanvuori (both in
Laitila) with reference to a possible Early Metal Period dating. The Kirkenlinna site
(cf. Appelgren 1891: 42-44, Kuva 22) is similar to Hautvuori in the sense that also
here a stone construction is sealing off part of the hill, but no finds supporting an
early dating have been found. As the only finds are pieces of burned clay the site
cannot at present add much to the discussion on chronology. More interesting is the
Vähä-Kuuvanvuori case. At this low hill an enclosure has been erected without any
obvious reason. Archaeological and archaeometrical investigations in the 1990’s
did not reveal any evidence of habitation in the form of artefacts, cultural layers
or increased phosporus contents. The only artefact that might be connected with
the use of the site is a fragmentary stoneaxe (KM 18913) of Bronze Age type found
earlier as a stray find on top of the hill. Due to the relatively low elevation a Bronze
Age dating for the site is, however, not likely. With reference to the occurrence of
the same type of stone axes still in the Early Iron Age Luoto (2003: 177-178; cf. Salo
1981: 291) has regarded the Pre-Roman Iron Age as the earliest possible date for the
site. He has also compared Vähä-Kuuvanvuori with a low hill-site containing an
enclosure at Saarnummi in Kodisjoki, where cairns of Early Metal Period character
are found close by. Luoto suggests that this site together with Vähä-Kuuvanvuori
indicates the occurrence of such enclosures as early as the Bronze Age or the Early
Iron Age.
The main hill-site showing clear evidence of utilisation during the Early Metal
Period is the Vanhalinna hill-fort in Lieto. At Vanhalinna the Late Bronze Age is
well represented in the form of ceramics, but traces of Early Iron Age settlement
have been regarded as absent. The lack of typical Morby Ware has been interpreted
as an indication of no habitation after about 500 BC (Luoto 1980: 62; 1984: 151).
On the other hand the coarse tempered striated vessels the rims of which have
been decorated with impressions of indistinct form (type VEC) have rightfully
been interpreted as related to Morby Ware (Luoto 1984: 110, 226) and could, in

113
principle, date from the Early Iron Age. Another type of pottery most probably
datable to the Pre-Roman Iron Age is a single piece of a vessel decorated with
comb-like impressions (type VDA), interpreted by Luoto (1984: 109, 160, 226) as
Typical Comb Ware. The same type of pottery occurs in Estonia, where it is dated
to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Taavitsainen 1990: 140, 240; cf. Lang 1996: Tahvel XLIV:
9, Joon. 12:3, 52, 288-289; 2006a: 129-130; Kriiska & Tvauri 2002: 131). Another find
that might belong to the Early Iron Age is a shepherds crook pin, previously dated
to 550-750 AD, with the reservation that it might be somewhat earlier (Luoto 1984:
71, 201). This find resembles Estonian pins dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Lang
1996: Tahvel X: 5-6, Tahvel XLIV: 3, 55, 288-289) and might, as suggested earlier by
Taavitsainen (1990: 140), date to this period.
In addition to the cases mentioned above there are three sites within the study
area, which have been dated to the Early Metal Period, namely the Huttala hill-fort
in Piikkiö, Lautkankare in Sauvo, and Rikala Linnamäki in Halikko. These sites
will be presented in closer detail below. Furthermore “epineolithic” ceramics have
been found at Hiukkasaari in Vammala (Luoto 2004), Linnosaari in Valkeakoski
and probably also at Linnasaari in Tiuri, Räisälä (Taavitsainen 1990: 228, 240;
Carpelan 1997). Worth noting are also finds of Stone Age artefacts and related
material which cannot be given a precise dating that have been found at several
other hill-sites (Taavitsainen 1982; 1990: 127, 132; cf. Lahelma & Sipilä 2004: 13-
14). The Hiukkasaari, Linnosaari and Linnasaari cases are islands, where the early
finds are not necessarily related to the islands being used as fortifications or in
some other way similar to the use of proper hill-sites. The latter ones, on the other
hand, may hint to some interest in hill-sites as early as the Stone Age. Another
kind of such an interest could be the rockpaintings located on steep hillslopes and
on hills with special shapes. There does not, however, seem to be any apparent
connection between hill-forts and rock paintings (even if they may occur together).
As the Stone Age material remains obscure, it seems that the first hill-sites in the
form discussed here – with or without wallstructures – came into use during the
Early Metal Period.
The interpretation of different types of hill-sites has been discussed especially
in Sweden. One way of approaching the problem has been rejection of the general
explanation of all sites as hill-forts (often used with a simplistic division into settled
forts and refuge forts) and starting from the assumption that the “forts” are first of
all enclosures, the enclosed space of which could have had different purposes, not
all of which necessarily related to fortifying (Johansen & Pettersson 1993: 32-35, 80-
81; Olausson 1995; Johansen 1997: 115-117; Wall 2002; 2003). Some archaeologists
have totally abandoned the idea of Bronze Age ’hill-forts’ being fortifications, and
also ‘hill-forts’ of the Iron Age have been considered likely to have other functions

114
(e.g. Carlsson 2005: 168). Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age hill-sites have, for
example, been discussed as “henged mountains” (Sw. hägnade berg), which are not
fortifications but parts of the ritual landscape of the Early Metal Period and the
Early Iron Age (Olausson 1995; Wall 2002; 2003; cf. Carlsson 2001: 57-60).39
The variety of hill-sites has been exemplified by Michael Olausson (1995) within
Uppland in central Sweden, where proper hill-forts, different kinds of enclosures
as well as hilltop settlements were introduced in the Early Metal Period. These
enclosure sites do not represent only one category of sites; many of them have been
of mainly symbolic/ideological character and in only a few cases of a more practical
and functional nature. The sites in Uppland occur during both the Late Bronze Age
and the Early Iron Age, but it seems that different types of hill-sites characterize
the Early Iron Age from the Late Bronze Age. No proper hill-forts dated to the
Pre-Roman Period occur in the area; only some datings from the centuries before
and after the birth of Christ are available (Olausson 1995: 156). Bank enclosure sites
(Sw. vallanläggningar) are a category partly divergent from the hill-forts, dating
from the Pre-Roman Iron Age up to the Early Roman Iron Age when they seem to
have been abandoned. Some of the bank enclosure sites may have had fortification
functions while others having ramparts of noticeably smaller dimensions – some of
which are more like rows of stones than real banks or ramparts – obviously acted
only as symbolic/ideological boundaries (Olausson 1995: Fig. 5:4, 156-157, 237).40
Similar structures have been investigated in Södertörn in eastern Central Sweden
by Wall (2002; 2003). In the Södertörn case there are some sites dated to the Early
Metal Period, but the main focus of Wall’s study is on the Late Roman Iron Age

39
One suggestion is that the ritual use of these hills and enclosures could have included
the conception that the mountains housed the souls of the dead (Johansen 1997: 134,
145; Carlsson 2001: 60; 2005: 168). A more general interpretation is that the mountains
were “holy”, liminal places – mythically sanctioned boundary zones, where transitional
phases in social relations between people and groups could have been handled (Wall
2003). Iron Age (especially the Roman Iron Age and Migration Period) henged hill-
sites, on the other hand, have also been discussed in relation to ancient Scandinavian
mythology, where the henged hills could have acted as cultic places with enclosures
separating the world of the living from the worlds of the gods and giants (Carlsson
2005).
40
The idea of stone constructions on hill-sites being merely symbolic boundaries has
not been much expressed in the Finnish research. One important exception is the
suggestion by Luoto (1999; 2003: 176-179; 2004: 92-98) that some of the Finnish hill-forts
would belong to the category of ‘temple forts’ (Fi. temppelilinna), i.e. having a function as
sanctuaries or sacrificial sites. According to this view finds occurring on some hill-forts
could be interpreted as offerings rather than items deposited in a functional context.
Luoto (2003: 178) has furthermore suggested (with reference to the Vähä-Kuuvanvuori
and Saarnummi cases) that these henged hills could be a modification of the idea of
stone circles found in Bronze Age cairns and as such comparable also with the cells of
tarand type cemeteries.

115
and the Merovingian Period. Indications of a Pre-Roman and Early Roman period
of fortifications occur also on the Swedish island Gotland, but the excavated sites
and dated materials are sparse (Cassel 1998: 141-144). These early enclosured sites
are situated on flat ground, whereas proper “hill-forts” seem to belong to a period
starting with the Late Roman Iron Age.41
Several forms of hill-sites or enclosured sites on flat ground have also been
distinquished in the East Baltic area (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia), including
fortified settlements, hilltop settlements, ring forts and promontory hill forts. The
earliest sites are found in the southern part of the area, where they came into use as
early as the end of the second millennium BC, whereas in Estonia such sites start
to occur in the Late Bronze Age (Lang 2007a: 41, 88; 2007b). Several sites have also
been in use during the Pre-Roman Iron Age (as well as during the Late Iron Age).
More exact datings are often difficult to achieve as, for example, ceramic finds may
be datable only to the Pre-Roman Iron Age or the Early Metal Period in general. In
Estonia it seems that late Pre-Roman Iron Age dates are more frequent than those
from the earlier half of the period. One exception is the Võnnumägi hill at Keava,
where radiocarbon dates indicate its use during the 4th or 3rd century BC (Lang et
al. 2005b). The use of many fortified sites seems to cease after the Pre-Roman Iron
Age. This is the case in Estonia and parts of Latvia, while Roman Iron Age dates
have been obtained from Lithuania (as well as from sites in the part of eastern
Latvia) (Lang 2007a: 157-158). The Estonian date-pattern applies in general also to
the Finnish material, i.e. the indications of early use of hill-sites roughly correspond
to the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age.42

3.4.4.2. Piikkiö, Paimio and Sauvo

The only ascertained hill-site in Piikkiö is the Huttala “hill-fort” (Linnavuori), a

steep mountain, one slope of which is sealed off by a stone fence (Appelgren 1891:
54-55; Luoto 1984: 156; 1989: 29-30, 54-55). The stone construction is damaged, but
it seems to have consisted of rather few stones, more like a boundary marker than a
fundament for a barricade (Fig. 46). The stone construction marks the outer border
of a lower plateau, the inner border of which is formed by the natural shape of

41
Enclosured sites – ring forts – comparable to those on Gotland also occur in the western
part of Estonia. Based on pottery finds datings to the Early Iron Age in general, or more
specifically to between the end of the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the end of the Roman
Iron Age have been suggested (Konsa et al. 2006).
42
There is one radiocarbon date indicating the use of hill-sites during the (Late) Roman
Iron Age. It was obtained from a potsherd found at Vanhalinna in Lieto. The dating was
made from crust in connection with another study and is so far unpublished.

116
the slope rising to the top-plateau of the mountain. This is the typical location of
constructions on henged mountains described by Wall (2003: 126-129). Whereas
most henged mountains do not have cultural layers Huttala is different as test
excavations have demonstrated that there is coloured soil and finds preserved
in the topsoil of the lower plateau as well as in cavities on the upper plateau.
Excavations conducted in the 1980’s revealed Iron Age ceramics and iron slag (TYA
226:1-20). The ceramics have few datable features, but one piece is datable to the
end of the Iron Age while one piece belongs to a pot with a striated surface (Luoto
1989: 55). One radiocarbon date from charcoal found near the stone construction
gave the result 1990 ± 130 (Hel-1970). The wide probability ranges of the date are
problematic; calibration gives the result 400 cal BC – 350 cal AD, with a 65.8 %
probability for the period 180 cal BC – 140 cal AD. If the Late Roman Iron Age is
ruled out, the date could match the dating of the striated pottery. The relationship
between the radiocarbon date, the pottery, the stone construction and the activities
performed at the site still remain difficult to explain. The radiocarbon date and the
pottery indicate Early Iron Age activity at the site, but it is not possible to date for
certain the other features to this period. With reference to the dating of the henged

Fig. 46. Stone construction at the Huttala hill-site in Piikkiö.

117
mountains in eastern Sweden there is, however, good reason to suppose that also
the stone construction could be of the same age.
In Paimio there are three hill-sites where stone constructions have been
discovered. Excavations have been performed on one of them, the hill-site
Nakolinna (Appelgren 1891: 55-57; Erkola 1973: 60-61; Luoto 1990a). At this site
the top of the mountain is almost encircled by a low stone construction. In 1979
some test pits and a trench across the stone wall were excavated. No finds were
revealed, but charcoal found beneath the stones of the wall was radiocarbon dated.
The result was 1540 ± 110 BP (Hel-2729; Luoto 1990a: 54), i.e. 250-690 cal AD, with
a 68.2 % probability for the period 420-640 cal AD.43 Linking the charcoal with the
stone construction is of course not unproblematic. The radiocarbon date obtained
is, however, so far the only available dating for the site.
Another hill-site is the Ruokolinna hill in the village of Sattela, where the
remains of a stone construction have been reported on the northeast, east and
south sides side of the hill (Appelgren 1891; 58; Ikäheimo 1982: 68). The nature
of the site remains unclear as no excavations have been made and there has even
been some confusion concerning the character of the stone constructions (cf. Erkola
1973: 61). Much more interesting is the third of the hill-sites in Paimio, the Rekottila
“hill-fort” (Linnamäki) (Appelgren 1891: 58-59; cf. Erkola 1973: 61). The Rekottila
site is situated on the highest part of a steep mountain. The highest area is sealed
off by a few stone settings, the biggest of which is situated in a big notch on the
hillside. On the opposite side of the mountain there are three cairns, two of which
were excavated in 1885. The opened cairns contained no objects, but their general
character is that of cairns generally dated to the Bronze Age. The Rekottila complex
furthermore includes a probable rockpainting, situated on a concave slope of
the hill underneath the stone constructions of the “hill-fort”. At present it is not
possible to date the site accurately, but the idea that the cairns are from the Bronze
Age and the hill-fort from the Iron Age is no more likely than the possibility that
all components of the complex are contemporaneous. This may in fact be one site
indicating early use of henged mountains within the study area.
A more credible Early Metal Period dating has been obtained from the
Lautakankare ”hill-fort” (Linnamäki) in Sauvo (Luoto 1990b: 36-44; cf. 1980: 63;
1984: 155-156). At the Lautakankare hill-top, between outcrops of bedrock, there
is a large depression, sealed off by a short stone wall. Excavations performed at
this spot as well as at a location down the hillslope have revealed cultural layers

43
Luoto (1990a: 54) has discussed the result of calibration with somewhat different numbers,
the end result being the interpretation that the erection of the stone construction most
probably took place during the Migration Period.

118
containing smooth-walled as well as striated and textile-impressed ceramics, burned
clay, a few flakes (flint, quarz, and porphyrite) some pieces of burned bone etc. Five
pottery fragments (TYA 139:41) have shallow impressions on the brim. In addition,
textile-impressed and striated ceramics with so-called "cat’s paw" impressions
have been found (Luoto 1990b: 38-39; cf. TYA 139:40, 59). These pottery finds – at
least partly classifiable as Morby Ware – indicate a Pre-Roman dating for the early
stage of use of the site (cf. Luoto 1984: 161; 1990b). Other finds, like smooth-walled
pottery decorated with cord impressions, indicate Late Iron Age activities, at least
on the lower location downhill. The Early Metal Period finds have been interpreted
as indicative of a settlement site. According to one view, Lautkankare is an example
of an early settlement, the location of which has been chosen with the increased
possibility of defence in mind. Luoto (1990b) has regarded such sites (including
Vanhalinna and Huttala) as settlement sites with the role of centres with regard to
defence and economy.

3.4.4.3. Halikko, Salo, Pertteli and Muurla

The Pöylä “hill-fort” (Linnanmäki) in Halikko is one of the less well known hill-
sites within the study area. It is enclosed by a ca. 90 metre long, partly intermittent
henge (Hirviluoto 1992: 77-78). No information on the dating of the structures is
available. The site, located outside the area of Iron Age cemeteries of the Halikko
area, resembles the idea of a henged mountain described above more than a proper
hill-fort.
A quite different site is the Rikala “hill-fort” (Linnamäki) in Halikko, which
is probably the most recognized of all the hill-sites within the study area. This is
mostly due to the site being part of the Rikala complex, which includes (among
other features) a Merovingian Period cremation cemetery and a famous Late Iron
Age (mainly Crusade Period) inhumation cemetery rich in finds, but also indications
of Pre-Roman settlement. Already long before the inhumation cemetery was found
in the 1950’s, local tradition combined Rikala with richness (Fi. rikas) and even the
idea of the area having had a townlike character was presented (e.g. Appelgren
1891: 63-64). Later Rikala was regarded as a Late Iron Age trade centre and the site
of a chief, who according to one view acted as the leader of the whole Halikko area
(Hirviluoto 1992: 125). Thus, the function of the hill-site – watching and protecting
the Rikala area – has been seen in the light of Rikala as a whole. The hill-site has
been known for centuries due also to the quite massive stone construction at the
site, about 180 metres long, running along the southern and southeastern edges of
the top plateau of the mountain.

119
 The possibility of cultural layers
39

being preserved at the hill-site has

25 59,4
earlier been indicated by a couple
of pieces of Iron Age pottery (KM

50
16750; TYA 157:1-2) found close
to the stone construction. The
question of whether other traces of
58,5

activities can be found at the site

55
53 was explored further in 2001 using
phosphorus mapping (Asplund
53

43
56,6 2003). Soil samples were taken with
55

a narrow borer, which gave some

50

possibilities to also visually detect

45
unnatural colourings or disturbed
35

layers in the soil. At a few sampling

Fig 47. The result of phosphorus mapping points possible cultural layers could
at the Rikala hill-site. The sample interval
actually be seen. The phosphorus
is ten metres. The larger the dot the bigger
the concentration of phosphorus. The stone content was relatively high in many
construction is marked with a line. samples, but the standard deviation
is rather low when all samples are
compared and no single anomaly restricted to only a specific area of the site could be
located (Fig. 47). This could in principle indicate a generally high concentration due
to local circumstances or due to the technique of analysis, but in this case it is more
likely that the high phosphorus content is related to human impact, i.e. activities
that are reflected in several parts of the investigated area. This is indicated by the
observations of possible cultural layers in the bored samples, unnatural moundlike
formations visible just inside the stone construction as well as the archaeological
finds obtained during a minor excavation performed the year after the phosphorus
survey (cf. Asplund 2007).44

44
In addition to phosphorus content some of the Linnamäki samples were analysed
regarding their contents of potassium, calcium, copper, lead, magnesium, manganese,
sodium, iron and zinc. The average concentrations of calcium, iron and lead were found
to be bigger than background concentrations in natural soils on the average – the high
iron content might, however, be due to non-cultural geochemical processes (Laine
2003: 50-51). It could also be noted, that almost all of the investigated elements showed
concentrations lower than comparative results from Iron Age and medieval settlement
site samples. On the other hand the highest amount of lead, iron and copper occurred
within the same sample, which indicates a probable anthropogenic impact rather
than a coincidence; in the same manner another single sample contained the highest
concentrations of manganese, zinc and calcium (Laine 2003: 28, 32).

120
 The excavation area
was chosen according to
the information obtained
in the survey. A testpit one
square metre wide was
investigated close to some
of the sample spots where
the highest concentrations
of phosphorus as well as
one indication of unnatural
soil layers had been Fig. 48. Iron Age / medieval type pottery (TYA 817) from
the Rikala hill-site.
previously detected. At the
excavated spot there was a layer with the maximum depth of about 25 cm where
artefacts and a little soot and charcoal had accumulated. The finds (TYA 817:1-
40) consist mainly of pottery, 68 pieces in all. The main part of the pottery is of a
general Iron Age / medieval type and belongs to two vessels, one of which coarse
(Fig. 48), the other having a slightly smoothed surface. In addition to this, there are
single pieces from a few other vessels. The only decorated piece (TYA 817:24) is a
fragment with a couple of lines, probably forming a zigzag line close to the rim.
This fragment can unfortunately not be dated – it probably belongs to the Late
Iron Age, but somewhat similar wavy lines may occur also on Late Bronze Age
vessels. Instead, the most interesting pieces of pottery are two small fragments with
a textile-impressed surface (Fig. 49). Although small in size, these fragments can be
quite reliably dated to the Early Metal Period.
Another attempt to date the site was made using radiocarbon dating. This
was done using the crust on one piece of pottery (TYA 817:1) and one charcoal
sample (TYA 817:40) gathered from the excavated layer. The result obtained from
the potsherd was 1395 ± 35 (Poz-3576), i.e. 560-700 cal AD and that of the charcoal
sample 1160 ± 40 (Poz-3577), i.e. 770-980 cal AD. The dated samples are clearly of
different age; the former dates to the Merovingian Period and the latter to the Viking
Age. The Merovingian Period crust dating must be regarded as quite reliable and as
an indication of the use of the site during
this period, whereas the Viking Age date
obtained from charcoal should be viewed
more critically. It is clear, however, that
the charcoal was formed at the site later
than the Merovingian Period. When
Fig. 49. Fragments of textile-impressed ware summing up the information from the
(TYA 817:18, 21) from the Rikala hill-site. small investigation at Rikala, it has been

121
made clear that there are cultural layers at the site, evidently containing much
pottery. Whether this is due to actual dwelling at the site is uncertain.45 What is
obvious is that this hill-site shows both a Bronze Age or Early Iron Age period of
activity as well as a later Iron Age period of use. In this respect it resembles the
previously presented Huttala and Lautkankare sites within the study area.
The remaining hill-sites in the eastern part of the study area remain more
obscure. In Salo the hill-site of Hakastaro evidently belongs to the Historical
Period, judging from the use of mortar in the wall construction (Appelgren 1891:
67-71; cf. Luoto 1984: 155; Hirviluoto 1991: 182-184). In Pertteli the Pöytiö “hill-fort”
(Linnamäki) is a small, steep hill, partly enclosed by the remains of a stone henge
(Appelgren 1891: 72). The site has not been investigated further. The same goes for
the Järvinen “hill-fort” (Linnamäki) in Muurla (Appelgren 1891: 71-72; cf. Koivisto
& Saariluoma 1957: 24). This is a quite big, steep mountain, where short (about 10
metres at the longest) stone constructions have been assembled in a few cavities
(canyons) on the upper part of the hillsides. Due to the large size of the mountain in
combination with the modest constructions it is hard to think of the site as a place
where stone constructions have been erected with the aim of fortification.46

3.4.4.4. The archipelago area

Within the archipelago zone of the study area hill-sites of the types portrayed above
have not been registered – with one exception, the island Bårnholm in Nauvo,
described as an ancient fort as early as 1674 (Appelgren 1891: 7; Nordman 1937;
Tuovinen 1990a: 71-73; cf. Dahlström 1995: 96-101).47 At this steep rocky island a
ca. 20 metre-long stone rampart with a one metre wide opening can be seen on the
upper slope and traces of a possible other hedge further downhill. On the top of

45
Two soil samples were taken from the excavation area for palaeoethnobotanical
analysis. The samples, analysed by Terttu Lempiäinen, did not, however, contain any
macrofossils that could be connected with the prehistoric use of the site.
46
Among the hill-sites regarded as uncertain within the study area, the Veitakkala site
in Salo could be mentioned, as archaeologists have had different interpretations of the
importance of the site. In the 19th century possible remains of ramparts were registered
(Appelgren 1891: 65-67), but after that obvious constructions have not been confirmed
at the site. There is, however, a cairn at the site, which was excavated in the 19th century.
In the cairn an Early Bronze Age dagger (Appelgren 1891: Kuva 33) was found as well
as a knife made of iron. The knife is not necessary prehistoric (Schauman-Lönnqvist
1989: 72). Despite the problematic material the site is included in Luoto’s (1990a: 48)
list of sites matching the criteria for hill-forts in Finland Proper. Hirviluoto (1991: 181)
has even regarded it as a typical Iron Age fortification. This is too straightforward an
interpretation, as even the first descriptions of the site in the 19th century were vague.
47
The name also occurs in the form Bornholm.

122
the island there is a swampy depression that gathers rainwater. With reference to
this waterfilled cavity C. A. Nordman (1937: 27-28) has connected the name of the
island with the German word Born with the meaning of a well or, more generally,
drinking water. The name would thus probably belong to the Middle Ages, when
the German influence in Finland was at its greatest. In oral tradition the site has been
explained as a refuge site during the time when Danes were present on the Finnish
coast (Appelgren 1891: 7; cf. Tuovinen 1990a: 72). When referring to chronology
this could mean the Middle Ages or the 16th century. Also the possibility of the
site being a hideout used during the 18th century wars against the Russians has
been suggested in local tradition (Dahlström 1995: 99). The mentioning of the site
as an ancient fort already in the 17th century attests, however, that such a late use
of the site must have been secondary. Archaeologists have regarded a dating to
the Historical Period as plausible (e.g. Tallgren 1931: 158), but it is as possible that
the history of Bårnholm is older (Tuovinen 1990a: 72). As the stone construction
is situated quite high above water there is even the theoretical possibility that the
main stone construction would date from the Early Iron Age. If this had been the
case, the island would, however, at that time have had much less of its present
day character of a monumental high mountain. On the other hand, some of the
mainland hill-sites discussed in an Early Metal Period context have, at their initial
time of use, been situated close to water, too.
The only equivalent site in the archipelago is the island of Borgholm in Iniö
(outside the study area) (Appelgren 1891: 7-8; Tuovinen 1990a: 74-78; Tuovinen et
al. 1992). The highest point of this island rises about 28 metres above sea level. On
the lower slopes there are several stone constructions, forming about 450 metres of
stonewalls altogether (Tuovinen 1990a: 32). Also on this island there is a swampy
area where water accumulates. Due to the low elevation (ca. 8 metres above sea
level at the lowest) the stone constructions cannot be older than the Late Iron Age.
As this site (like Bårnholm) was regarded ancient already in 1674, the dating of the
site should be somewhere between 800 and 1600 AD (Tuovinen 1990a: 74; Tuovinen
et al. 1992: 30).
Both Bårnholm and Borgholm have been regarded as refuge sites where local
people would have sought shelter in times of danger (Tuovinen 1990a: 71; Tuovinen
et al. 1992: 39). So far there are no finds from either of the sites. Only two possible
areas of anomalous phosphorus concentrations registered at Borgholm (Tuovinen
et al. 1992) say anything of the use of these places. One question to ask is, whether
not also these two hill-sites in the archipelago could have functioned as something
other than fortifications – like probably many of the hill-sites on the mainland. At
least it is improbable that the sites would have functioned as refuge forts for people
living in the villages on the bigger islands. Gathering on these small spots would

123
have been a difficult and dangerous process requiring boats, offering a poor hiding
place and providing no straightforward way of retreat in case of actual combat
at the site.48 Possibly these sites were of a more symbolic nature, i.e. hills ritually
marked or sealed off by a stone enclosure. If this is the case, Borgholm in Iniö is
quite an important site, as it would indicate the erection of such sites as late as the
Late Iron Age or the Historical Period.

3.4.5. Continuity or change?

Returning to the question of the overall settlement development and the problem
of continuity, the function of the hill-sites has to be set aside for a moment. Despite
the problematic question of continuity within sites, it is obvious that there is a
general areal continuity of Pre-Roman settlement within the study area. Once again
the material covering half of a millennium is embarrassingly sparse, but we may
note the general large-scale similarity of distribution of sites compared with earlier
stages. The western Piikkiönlahti and Paimionlahti area is still distinguishable, as is
the Halikonlahti area in the east and the Kemiönsaari area in the south. What may
be indicative of a change is that the Kemiönsaari settlement sites are not situated in
the southernmost Dragsfjärd area as before but further inland, along long narrow
bays or straits in Västanfjärd and Kemiö. No indications of settlement sites have
so far been found in the more archipelagic areas of Nauvo and Parainen either.
What may be happening is that the Pre-Roman sites more than before are related
to agriculture and their location determined to a greater degree by the demands
of a farming economy. Not only on Kemiönsaari but also on the mainland no truly
coastal or marine-oriented sites can be identified, although all of them are situated
within access to water, along rivers, bays etc.
Cairns were most probably still built during the Pre-Roman Iron Age in a
much greater number than has been identified in the study area. From a few sites
(outside the study area) Early Iron Age cairns are known in archipelago contexts
(see chapter 6.6.3), but in general cairns dated to this period have not been found in
positions comparable to the Bronze Age cairns, in rocky landscapes often far distant
from settlement sites. The Pre-Roman cairns in Piikkiö and Muurla are found in
other types of landscapes (like the cairns possibly datable to this period located
in the vicinity of Pre-Roman settlement sites on Kemiönsaari). The material is too

48
The general idea of hill-forts being used as refuge sites (even when situated in more
suitable topographic locations on the mainland) has been criticized by Taavitsainen
(1990: 136-137; 1999b: 147).

124
small to draw any overall conclusion, but the cairn, as a symbol of contact between
human beings and the land, may have been moving closer to settlement sites. The
constellation of settlement, cleared fields and the place of the dead ancestors was
perhaps emerging as the triad in relation to which Early Iron Age people defined
their place in the world.
The hill-sites Huttalanmäki, Lautkankare and Rikala suggest an interest in a
form of places not seen in the research area prior to this. The emergence of such
sites cannot be exactly dated, but both Huttalanmäki and Lautkankare indicate
the use of the sites in the Pre-Roman Iron Age. At Rikala such a dating would fit
the fragments of textile-impressed ceramics found, but a slightly earlier dating is
possible. Whether these sites actually were enclosed by stone constructions already
at that point is not certain, but it seems plausible, like the idea that some of the other,
findless, hill-sites in the area may have been fenced during the Early Metal Period.
The emergence of this type of site may be indicative of some changes in society
at this time. If the three sites containing cultural layers were to be interpreted as
actually settled, it would indicate an interest in staying at (or at least having access
to) a defensive or monumental location. If the sites are of a more symbolic nature
they could still be seen as indicative of some level of social complexity – maybe
places for some to access and some not, or places at which to gather on certain
occasions. These sites might actually speak of social complexity more than the
building of large cairns during the Bronze Age. What must especially be pointed
out is also the location of these sites. The ones with cultural layers occur in areas
on the mainland later to be characterized by the occurrence of Iron Age cemeteries.
With the exception of Bårnholm (and Borgholm outside the study area) all hill-sites
with stone constructions are situated on the mainland.

3.5. Iron Age material in the Kemiönsaari archipelago

3.5.1. Stray finds and cairns

The Iron Age AD on Kemiönsaari is characterised by a scarcity of observations of

settlement or activity in the area. All in all there are only a few finds, many of which
are uncertain. The earliest mention is in Volter Högman’s report on the investigations
in Kemiönsaari in 1886, in which there is a description of a possible cup-marked
stone in the village of Berga in Kemiö. In southwestern Finland large boulders or
exposures of rock containing cup-like depressions are rather common and tend
to occur in connection with Iron Age sites. The dating of this type of remains is
difficult due to one not being able to date the cup-marks themselves, but only to

125
being able to compare the distribution with that of other types of sites. In Estonia,
where cup-marked stones occur in even greater numbers than in Finland, the best
correlation is actually found with Pre-Roman Iron Age sites. There the custom of
making cup-marks by and large came to an end already in the Early Roman Iron
Age, although prevailing longer in some peripheries (Tvauri 1997: 41). In Finland
it is usually the Iron Age AD (even the Late Iron Age) that is drawn attention to.
It cannot be excluded, however, that the custom of making cup-marks in some
areas could have spread already earlier.49 The cup-marked stones have generally
been interpreted as sacrificial sites related to cemeteries or fields. In the Turku area
a connection has been suggested between cup-marked stones, land ownership
and the marking of boundaries, like boundaries of single farms as well as newly
reclaimed outlying fields or other activity areas in boundary zones (Lehtonen 2000:
67, 78-79; Saloranta 2000: 23-25). The stone at Berga contained 15 depressions, but
has unfortunately since disappeared, making it impossible to make sure whether it
was a genuine cup-marked stone. The stone was located in the yard of Vestergård,
from whence it is said to have been rolled into the water by children in the 1920’s.
This account is not particularly consistent with a cup-marked stone, as they are
usually exposures of rock or large immovable boulders.
Another vague and unconfirmed
statement by Tallgren (1931: 86)
declares that Iron Age settlement may
have existed in Dragsfjärd and in the
Norrlammala village in Västanfjärd.
The site referred to in Västanfjärd
consisted of earth mounds and was
situated near the Engström cottage in
Västanvik (Tallgren 1931: 199). The site
is mentioned also in a survey report
from 1933 (cf. Cleve 1942: 24), but it
has since then not been investigated
further.
The only Iron Age find in the
present-day municipality of Kemiö that
can be considered certain is an elliptical
Fig 50. A fire-striking stone (KM 30444) fire-striking stone found at Helgeboda
from Helgeboda in Kemiö. in Kemiö (KM 30444; Asplund 1997b:

49
In Sweden cup-marks most often occur in connection with Bronze Age rock carvings,
but they may have been introduced as early as the Early Neolithic as they are found also
on some megaliths (e.g. Burenhult 1983: 204-214).

126
 



























Vannais 




 









 


Malmgatan

  




 


























 




 Helgeboda


Strömma 








Germundsvedja




 Falkki






 Settlement site






 Stray findsettlement
 Uncertain site
0 20 km  Cairn or cemetery


 Fire striking stone



 Hill-site





Fig. 51. Distribution of stray find sites with known location containing
finds datable to AD 0-800.

262) (Fig. 50). Two similar ones have been found in the villages of Germundsvedja
(KM 20323) and Strömma (KM 23042) in Perniö and one (KM 33309) in Falkki in
Särkisalo, very close to Kemiönsaari (Fig. 51). Elliptical fire-striking stones were in
use from the Early Roman Iron Age to the Merovingian Period, the main period of
use being the Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period (Cleve 1943: 150-151;
Salo 1968: 169; 1970; 77-78; Kivikoski 1973: Abb. 186-189; Pellinen 1999: 27) (Fig. 52).
Equivalents of the Finnish elliptical fire-striking stones are found in Scandinavia,
where they are common (Hackman 1905: 241-252; Rydh 1921). Approximately 500
of these stones are known in Finland. They have mostly been found separate from
other Iron Age finds and also often in areas in which there are no Iron Age cemeteries.
The high number suggests that they were not lost but consciously sacrificed. The
primary function of the stones most likely was the making of fire: an iron object
was struck upon the stone, thus producing a spark that caught on tinder; it could
then be built into a flame. Since no particular shape of the stone is necessary to
produce a spark, their intentional and uniform shaping has to be connected with
their symbolic meaning. The form, reminiscent of the female genitalia, suggests
that these stones carried a fertility symbolism of some kind. As the spark given
and the fire lit must have been elements in this symbolism, the worship of the
god of thunder, lightning and fire, Ukko (Fi.) or Tor (Sw.), has been suggested as
one explanation for the ritual significance of the fire-striking stones (Salo 1990a;

127
 Period Dating (BC/AD) 1990b). The fire-clearance and utilisation
Pre-Roman Iron Age 500-1 of burn-beaten outland fields could have
Early Roman Iron Age 1-200 been one context in which the deposition
Late Roman Iron Age 200-400 of these stones took place (Meinander
Migration Period 400-550/600 1950: 134-136; Taavitsainen 1990: 67).
Merovingian Period 550/600-800 Another Iron Age find possibly
Viking Age 800-1050 relating to Kemiö is a sword (KM 7011)
Crusade Period 1050-1200 said to have been found in the village
Fig 52. Iron Age chronology of south­ of Kila (Fig. 53). The sword in question
western Finland. In the study the Early is a Viking Age X-type sword, added to
Iron Age refers to the Pre-Roman and the collection of the National Museum of
Roman Iron Age, the Middle Iron Age to Finland in 1916. An inspection conducted
the Migration and Merovingian Periods
and the Late Iron Age to the Viking Age in the village of Kila in the same year
and the Crusade Period.50 proved knowledge of the place of
discovery to be very uncertain; the owner
of the house reported as the place of discovery said that a bayonet had been found
there, but knew nothing of a sword find (Asplund & Vuorela 1989: 68; Asplund
1997b: 261).
It is interesting to note that the number of Iron Age finds is slightly higher in the
archipelago of Dragsfjärd than in other parts of Kemiönsaari. Although the sites
are not numerous even in this area, all observations seem to indicate a rise in the
significance of the area in the Late Iron Age. The first finds included a small pendant-
like whetstone, found in a cairn on Stora Ängeskär in 1924 (Tuovinen 1990a: 62;
2002a: Fig 51). Similar whetstones have been found in Viking Age cemeteries in
Sweden and in the Åland Islands. In addition, there are three cairns on Ängeskär
and the adjacent Kaldholmen that are situated at such a low elevation, that they

50
The chronology is in agreement with established Finnish Iron Age chronology (e.g.
Edgren 1993: 19; Huurre 1995: 117). There has been a discussion on whether the
archaeologically defined end of the Finnish Viking Age and the start of the Crusade
Pariod actually should be dated 1025 AD (Sarvas 1971: 50; 1972: 59). The dating – based
on typical Crusade Period ornaments found together with imitations of Byzantine coins
from the reign of Basil II (976-1025) and accepted by many archaeologists (e.g. Asplund
1997: 261) – has later been criticised. The coins, which the dating is based on, have
remained in circulation for a long time and thus there is no reason to shift the period
boundary (Talvio 2004). The end of the Crusade Period in southwestern Finland, on the
other hand, has traditionally been dated 1150 AD. There is, however, evidence of pagan
mortuary rites as late as around 1200 AD (Sarvas 1971: 52; 1972; Katiskoski 1992: 84-87)
– a dating thus better suitable as the archaeological period boundary. Within the Finnish
chronology, the Middle Ages begins after the Crusade Period. Whenever the concept
‘early Middle Ages’ has been used in this book it refers to the Finnish chronology where
the period is defined as 1150-1323 AD (e.g. Vahtola 1988) or, more generally, 1200-1300
AD (Hiekkanen 2003: 252).

128
must date to the Iron Age at the earliest (Tuovinen 1990: 61-62: 2000a: 25). There are
also cairns situated at similar low elevations on other islands in the surrounding
areas of Hiittinen.
Further evidence of Iron Age activity in the archipelagic area of Dragsfjärd are
certain pottery finds near Krogarudden at the cape of Purunpää (Edgren 1997b).
Fragments of three or four ceramic vessels have been raised from the sea, one of
which is nearly whole and has decorations of wavy lines on its upper part. The
form and decorations in particular of the last-mentioned vessel are reminiscent of
so-called Baltic Ware (Sw. Östersjökeramik), Wendish or western Slavic ceramics,
which became common in the southern Baltic Sea area at the turn of the Iron Age
and the Middle Ages. The Purunpää vessels were most likely used between the
11th and the 13th century (Kallberg 1990; Edgren 1997b: 31). Fragments of a vessel
pertaining to the same age and cultural sphere have also been found at the trading
site of Kyrksundet (Edgren 1995c: 53; 1997b: 31-32).
At Krogarudden itself, used as a harbour in the 17th and 18th century (Dahlström
1995: 31-48; Asplund 2001b) one small fragment of pottery (KM 30443) has been
retrieved, which would appear to be from a rough-surfaced vessel fired at a low
temperature. This fragment too is more likely to be connected with the ceramic
technology of the end of the Iron Age or the Middle Ages than with 17th century
pottery-making techniques (Asplund 1996: 9; Asplund 1997b: 269). Although
this single fragment has only minor value as evidence, it may be an additional





















 









 
 
 



 

 










 








 

 
 








  




















 
 





 





























 

















 






Kila









 

 





Björkholm Jermo










Stora Ängesön 




 Settlement site







Uncertain
 

 settlement
Stray find site


0 20 km 
Böle 

 Cairn or cemetery
 Uncertain stray find




 Hill-site



Fig. 53. Distribution of stray find sites with known location

containing finds datable to AD 800-1200.

129
indication that Purunpää too was significant as a harbour as early as the Middle
Ages. Another find difficult to interpret, which may reveal something about the Late
Iron Age in the archipelago, is a fragment of a rune stone found at Stora Ängesön
in Dragsfjärd. The inscription is probably from the late 11th century, but when and
how the fragment was deposited at the site is not known (Åhlén et al. 1997; Åhlén
et al. 1998; cf. Edgren 1999a: 19-21).
The most important Late Iron Age site is Kyrksundet in the Hiittinen archipelago
in southern Dragsfjärd, where a trading site has been investigated. Close to this
site, at the village of Böle, one Viking Age axe (KM 2503A:3) has also been found.
Axes of this C-type occurred in Finland as early as the end of the Merovingian
Period, but the form of the Böle axe is considered to be related to Viking Age axes
of this type (Wuolijoki 1972: 5-7).

3.5.2. The Kyrksundet trading site

Between the two main islands in the Hiittinen archipelago, Hiittinen and Rosala, an
island called Kyrkön, "Church Island", was earlier situated. Nowadays Kyrkön is
part of the island of Hiittinen. As indicated by the name, the church and graveyard
of the archipelago parish of Hiittinen (nowadays part of Dragsfjärd municipality)
was situated here, until the site of the church was moved to the village of Hiittinen in
1637. The old church island and the island of Rosala are separated by a narrow strait
called Kyrksundet – "Church Strait" – known as a toponym since the 14th century.
The first occurrences of the name are found in two letters signed at the site by King
Magnus Eriksson in 1347. The name, however, had a broader meaning than the
strait alone; the whole parish of Hiittinen was formerly known as Kyrkosundsskär,
"Church Strait Islands". It is still possible to sail through Kyrksundet strait. It leads
between the large islands towards the village of Hiittinen in the southeast. Although
the strait is a sort of shortcut, its importance must earlier have been related to its
position as a sheltered resting and beaching spot. So far most of the archaeological
finds concerning the use of the strait have come from its gently rising northern shore.
This is also where the aforementioned old graveyard and remains of a chapel are
located.
Kyrksundet has interested archaeologists and historians as an old location of a
chapel, and also because it has been seen as connected with a site called Örsund along a
sailing route described in a Danish itinerary (e.g. Gallén 1993). The first archaeological
excavations in the Kyrksundet area were carried out by C. O. Nordman in 1938-
39, when he investigated the remains of the chapel’s foundations and certain areas
within the churchyard (Nordman 1940). According to Nordman’s interpretation, the
oldest burials are from the 13th century. Although there is no archaeological evidence

130
from the chapel area to suggest such an early dating, Nordman is probably correct.
Archaeological support for Nordman’s view on the notable age of the chapel is
provided by recent observations in the areas surrounding the chapel.
Kyrksundet re-emerged as a focus of interest in 1991, when an archipelagic survey
conducted by the University of Turku led to the discovery of a number of Viking Age
bronze artefacts found in the Kyrksundet area.51 Most of these were broken pieces
of jewellery, evidently scrap metal that has been cut into pieces for re-casting. The
first finds also included a bronze bar and an unfinished belt buckle. The University
of Turku conducted preliminary investigations at the Kyrksundet site that same
year, while the National Board of Antiquities started more extensive test excavations
of the area in 1992 under the supervision of Torsten Edgren. Among other things
a phosphorus mapping of the area was performed, the result of which indicated
a zone of high phosphorus content, probably following the old shoreline, which
would indicate activity along the ancient shore. A test excavation was performed in
the area in the same year. After this the investigations in Kyrksundet continued for a
couple of weeks every summer from 1993-1997. The purpose of the excavations was
to clarify the nature of the Kyrksundet site in the vicinity of the earlier finds and in
the chapel area, where the question at first was what possibilities of investigation
remained after the rather extensive excavations of Nordman.
The first Iron Age finds in Kyrksundet were interpreted as having come from
a cemetery, but very soon the idea of a possible Late Iron Age trading site was
suggested. At the time the archaeological material may not yet have been sufficient
to support such an interpretation; as the amount of material has increased, however,
the argument has become valid. Although the finds from the site are revolutionary
in the sense that this is the first prehistoric trading site investigated in Finland, they
were not totally unexpected. Tallgren (1931: 116) noted already in the 1930’s that Late
Iron Age finds might be expected at Hiittinen because of the medieval trade route
passing through the area.
The results of the investigations show that the nature and distribution of the finds
in the area of Kyrksundet do not correspond to what could be expected of a normal
settlement, but rather indicate a more specialised use of the area. The significance
of trade is most directly suggested by the presence of weights, thirty of which have
been found in the area; by coins, including five fragmentary Islamic dirhams from
the 9th and 10th centuries, as well as several European coins or their fragments from

51
A local resident using a metal detector discovered the first artefacts. After that the area
was surveyed more closely. One idea presented in the first reports was that the site
would be visible due to distinct divergences in present day vegetation (Fagerström 2003:
50). This has not been confirmed. Except the constructions at the medieval graveyard all
indications of an archaeological site have been obtained by prospecting and excavations
in the area.

131
the end of the 10th century and the 11th century; and by keys, of which three have
been found (Edgren 1995c: 54-55; 1996a; 1997a; 1999a; Talvio 2002: 206; cf. Edgren
1995a; 1995b).52 Finds related to bronze casting also fit the idea of a trading site. In
addition to intact jewellery, parts of jewellery deliberately cut into pieces have also
been found, as well as bronze bars, an unfinished bronze belt buckle, the bronze
peg of the conduit of a casting mould, bronze slag, and a splashing of bronze that
had fallen into the sand (Edgren 1995c: 56). It would therefore seem obvious that
bronze casting occasionally took place on the site.
The central question has to do with the intensity of use of the Kyrksundet
trading site, in other words whether there was a permanent settlement on the site
and whether its activity was regular or occasional. Thus far, nothing has emerged
that would suggest permanent settlement. Observations of cultural layers, refuse
and structures are so sparse that they are considerably more consistent with the
theory of occasional visits. The absence of permanent settlement is also suggested
by the results of macrofossil studies, as no species of plant related with certainty
to human activity have been found. One interpretation of this is that use of the
trading site was seasonal (Edgren 1995c, 57; 1996a, 20; Asplund 1997b: 262-266).
During the sailing season Kyrksundet may have had large numbers of people who
came from the mainland to trade with people travelling along the Gulf of Finland,
but in winter the trading site was probably deserted.
Edgren (1999a: 17-18), in one discussion of the use of Kyrksundet, has proposed
a theory according to which more stable settlement gradually formed along the
sailing route. This would have led to a cemetery being set up, at the same place
at which a medieval chapel was later built. This could have been the start of a
later increasing Swedish colonization. Edgren’s (1999a) theory seems plausible in
principle, but so far it is unattested. The presumed permanent settlement in the area
of Hiittinen would not, according to investigations conducted at Kyrksundet, have
been situated there. It would have been somewhere else, either outside the areas
investigated at Kyrksundet, or in other parts of the islands of Hiittinen and Rosala.
The idea of permanent settlement related to the site has been repeated by Tuovinen
(2002a: 265; 2005a: 10), who has interpreted the site as permanently settled all year
round towards the end of the period from the 9th to the 11th centuries, at the latest.
There are good possibilities for dating the trading site of Kyrksundet on the basis
of artefact finds, since there are plenty of datable metal objects. Some of the finds
may have come from robbed graves and be secondary at their present site, but the

52
One of the dirhams is an ´Abbāsid, which has been dated as early as the end of the 8th
century (Edgren 1999a: 13-14). According to the latest view by Talvio (Talvio 2002: 76-
79, 84-87, 206), it was minted before 815, which makes it slightly younger, but it still
belongs to the early dirhams found in Finland.

132
composition of the find material does not support the idea that all early finds can be
explained in this way. In particular the high number of 10th and 11th century artefact
forms (Edgren 1995c: 56; 1996a: 20) suggests that trading began in Kyrksundet in
the Viking Age. This ties in well with the observation that at the time trading was
becoming more common both in the Baltic Sea region and along the Russian rivers.
The increased activity of Scandinavians towards the east is visible in the finds of
Kyrksundet as Scandinavian artefact forms, but some Finnish and Estonian types are
also present in the material.
The significance of Kyrksundet in the Middle Ages becomes apparent from the
fact that the chapel and graveyard were established here, and were not moved into the
villages of Hiittinen or Rosala until modern times. Medieval activity in Kyrksundet,
however, is not quite as apparent from the archaeological finds, although round
brooches, a knife handle, an iron key, a bronze mounting of a book, and cross-bow
arrowheads do reveal that the site was not completely deserted (Edgren 1995c: 62;
1996a: 17). Although the strait, the status of which was accentuated by the chapel and
the churchyard, evidently maintained its significance as a sheltered place for boats to
put in, the significance of Kyrksundet as a trading site probably decreased at the end
of the Iron Age or the beginning of the Middle Ages.
The possible existence of a pre-Christian cemetery has been considered in
interpretations of Kyrksundet. An attempt was made in 1991 to prove the presence of
such a cemetery in the easternmost part of the area, but so far no evidence has been
found to support this theory. The idea of a possible pagan cemetery was also presented
earlier by Nordman (1940), in connection with the occurrence of burnt bones near the
foundations of the chapel. The idea of a chapel being established on an old cemetery
is not altogether impossible. In the investigations of 1993 it was confirmed that burnt
bones (KM 27813:122; Edgren 1995c: 51) do in fact occur at the location of the remains
of the chapel, but there are no other finds from the area supporting the cemetery
theory. The other possible explanation by Nordman for the burnt bones was that they
derived from a burnt-down bone house. Other explanations can be applied as well,
such as the possibility that bones from heathen graves could have been brought to
the graveyard by Christian relatives (e.g. Taavitsainen 1992: 8-9).

3.5.3. Excavations in Makila

After the discovery and test excavation of the Pre-Roman settlement sites in Makila
in Kemiö, some further investigations in the area were planned and undertaken. In
addition to minor surveys of the field areas, attention was given to cairns situated
on a hill called Majberget, approximately 800 metres north of the Makila settlement
sites. The lower slopes of the hill are wooded but the top consists for the most part of
a rock surface. The highest point of the rock is near the 55 metre contour line. Four

133
 40

20

10

30 20
40
 



 

Majberget
40

30


40


 20


Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna






Settlement site
40


 Cairn

40
0 500 m 
 Temporary shelter

30

 Pollen sample site

Fig. 54. Archaeological sites in the village of Makila. Present-day fields are shaded.

stone constructions classified as cairns are situated on the hill; one on the western
part of the hill and three on the eastern part, which is highest (Fig. 54). The cairn in
the western part resembles a typical Bronze Age cairn. The three cairns in the eastern
part of Majberget are smaller and possibly partially damaged. Two of these have been
subjects of excavation, the easternmost in 1997 and the one in the middle in 2001.
The easternmost cairn, which was partly covered by low vegetation, was the first
one chosen for investigation. Before the start of excavation the cairn appeared to be
badly damaged. In the area presumed to be the actual cairn a low stone construction
protruded between moss and heaths, but separate stones were visible over a wide
area. After the cairn was exposed it was observed that the stone construction was
low, built on a rock surface, and approximately 6-7 metres in diameter (Fig. 55). It
might just as well be referred to as a stone setting as a proper cairn. Although the
construction had clearly been damaged in some parts, the final impression was
that the low construction might well reflect the shape of the original cairn. The
southern part of the construction was partly built into a cleft in the rock, which
was approximately one metre in breadth and at its deepest point more than half a
metre deeper than the cairn. To the east the cleft grew shallower, forming a ledge
southeast of the cairn and eastwards. As the cleft became shallower in the eastern

134
part of the construction, the stones filling it grew smaller. These stones outside the
actual cairn form their own construction, which is probably connected with the
shaping of the surroundings of the cairn during its building. Stones were used to
fill the cleft in the rock and to level off the ledge it forms on the southeast and east
sides of the cairn. The actual cairn may not originally have extended to the cleft.
The only observable structural detail in the cairn itself was a row of three or four
bigger stones inside the cairn. Three stones of the row were interpreted as being in
their original places. They were very close to the surface of the rock and it appeared
as if they had all been intentionally placed with the smooth side facing in the same
direction. The fourth stone was possibly in its original place, but there was slightly
more soil under it than under the three others. The excavated soil within the cairn
contained a large amount of small-sized crushed stone – weathered rock or coarse
sand. Inside the cairn and in the stone formations outside it there were random
stone splinters, some of which seemed burnt but did not have any noticeable
brittleness caused by fire. No charcoal or soot was noticed in the soil either. Under
the stones interpreted as being in situ a thin layer of crushed or weathered gravel

0 2m

Fig. 55. Cairn and additional stone setting at Majberget in Makila. Original
drawing by Riikka Saarinen and Tanja Ratilainen, digitised by Reetta Kivistö.

135
of granite composition (quartz, feldspar, hornblende) was found.53 Under the light-
coloured sand against the rock there was a thin layer of dark soil containing humus
– probably remains of the small amount of soil and vegetation on the surface of the
rock before the cairn was built. Under two of the stones, on top of the coarse light-
coloured sand – i.e. between the stones and the sand or in the upper part of the sand
layer – there were some tiny bits of charcoal (TYA 645:11-12). The charcoal had
apparently ended up there before the stones were placed. A radiocarbon dating
performed on the charcoal gave the age 1115 ± 35 BP (GrA-14115), the calibrated
result of which is 780-790, 820-850, and 860-1020 cal AD, the probability of the date
860-1020 cal AD being 92.7 %. This result was at first a surprise as it indicated that
the cairn does not belong to the Bronze Age or Early Iron Age settlement phase, but
is connected with Viking Age or later activity in the area.
The activity in connection with which the charcoal was produced and ended
up under the stones is so far conjectural. Nothing suggesting cremation was found
in the cairn and there were just a few other traces of burning. As no artefacts were
found in the cairn the whole meaning of the construction is difficult to understand.
At the time of excavation the light-coloured layer of gravel was interpreted as
intentionally spread on the ground before the erection of the cairn. Later similar
weathered material was also observed under ordinary stones outside the cairns.
This means that the material could have been formed by weathering also within
the cairn. Thus the idea of connecting the gravel with some ritual during the
erection of the cairn is unsure. There are, however, other cases within the study
area in which the base of a cairn seems to have been covered with sand. There
is no certain knowledge of this custom being related to any particular period. It
can, however, be noted that gravel and soil were apparently spread on the base
of the Late Iron Age cairns at Nötö in Nauvo (Tuovinen 1990a: 56; 2002a: 88, 91).
Similar to Majberget, material from weathering was also found between and under
the stones. Another comparison with the Majberget cairn is provided by cairn 2 at
Kokkila in Halikko (actually situated quite close to Kemiönsaari). The area of this
cairn was approximately 4 x 4 metres and the height only 0.15 metres, i.e. more
like a low stone setting than a proper cairn. It had an indefinite borderline, and
beneath the stone layer in fine white sand there was charcoal, a few burnt bones,
a bronze strap divider (KM 2435:4; Hirviluoto 1992: 69) and parts of a bone comb.
Next to a larger stone, burnt bone and an iron knife (KM 2435:7) were found in
soil mixed with charcoal. Furthermore, parts of a bone comb were found in white
sand underneath. The strap divider has been dated with reference to Kivikoski
(1973: 119, Tafel 103:892) to the 11th century (Hirviluoto 1992: 68). The chronology

53
Analysed by Matti Rossi.

136
of strap dividers is, however, not unambiguous and thus a slightly later date is also
possible, as in the case of the so-called Gotlandic belt accessories (cf. Sarvas 1971:
57; 1972: 37-39).54
Although the function of this Majberget cairn is uncertain, the terminus post
quem dating to the Viking Age makes it rather interesting and important. Together
with, for example, the Kokkila cairn described above and the cases discussed by
Tuovinen (e.g. 1990a; 2004) it could indicate the Late Iron Age (the Viking Age in
particular) as a period of cairn building within the study area. This idea had further
confirmation (as did the dating of the first cairn excavated) when the second cairn
at Majberget was investigated.
Like in the case of the first cairn the second one also had earlier been regarded
as demolished. When the cairn was cleared of vegetation it became apparent that
this cairn, too, most probably is not so heavily damaged as previously thought, but
represents a type of construction, where stones have been used to fill cavities and
level off ledges in the bedrock. Due to this, stones are spread over a large area outside
the centre of the construction – in this case more stones actually seem to have been
used for the forming of the surrounding than used in the middle of the construction,
where maybe only a low stone setting has been situated (Fig. 56). Similar constructions
around cairns have not been discussed in other cases, but it seems that examples of
such could be found. A cairn with a strange form, maybe comparable to the Majberget
cairns has, for example, been excavated by Tuovinen on the island of Lilla Kuusis in
Nauvo. The cairn was described as a flat stone setting, some of the stones of which
have probably slid down along the surface as they were found "where the surface is
slightly grooved" (Tuovinen 2002a: 98-100). The filling of cavities and grooves in the
rock can be seen also in the cairn excavated by Tuovinen (2002a: 101-104) at Ängesnäs
bergen in Nauvo. Neither of these cairns yielded any finds.
The same can be said about the second cairn at Majberget, where half of the
central area of the construction was excavated. No artefacts were found. The light-
coloured gravel occurred in this cairn, too, but no fire-cracked stones. Under some
of the biggest stones tiny pieces of charcoal were collected. The radiocarbon date
obtained from one such sample was 1215 ± 55 BP (Ua-18804), the calibrated result
of which is 680-970 cal AD, i.e. the end of the Merovingian Period or the Viking
Age. The sample is probably slightly older than the one obtained from the first
cairn. Together the datings are, however, consistent proof of Late Iron Age activity
in the area, the form and intensity of which remain undetermined. So far there are
no additional archaeological indications of Late Iron Age settlement at Makila. In
addition to the Early Iron Age settlement sites and the cairns, only one temporary

54
Outside the study area, light sand in an Iron Age cairn has been described by Pellinen
(2005: 178) in the case of the Tommila Rännemäki cairn in Vehmaa.

137
shelter of the tomtning type is known. This simple structure is located in the western
part of Majberget, and has not been examined in closer detail.
The village of Makila developed on the lower slope of Majberget in the Middle
Ages. The first mention of the village in historical sources (Makijla) is from 1540.
The village name Makila (Mankylä 1545; Makylä 1550) might relate to the Finnish
word kylä (village) or have the suffix -la, common for Finnish place-names related
to settlement; in the latter case a name of a person would form the first part of the
village-name (for example Mankinen - Mankila) (Huldén 2001: 135). From the first
detailed map from the end of the 18th century it can be seen that the fields of the
village were confined almost entirely to the north side of a small stream or ditch
running through the village – on the opposite side of the Early Iron Age settlement
sites (Fig. 57). Most of the present-day fields were already by that time open
pastures. The relationship between the historical village and the Majberget cairns,
situated on the hill rising above the village, is an interesting subject to consider. Do

0 2m

Fig. 56. Cairn site characterized by a low central stone setting and additional
stone settings leveling off cavities and ledges at Majberget in Makila.

138
 40

20

10


30 20
40 

 

 


Majberget
40

30
40


 20

Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna
Gärdorna

 Farm 1784

40

 Iron Age AD cairn



40
0 500 m  Temporary shelter

 Pollen sample site
 30

Fig. 57. Farms and fields (shaded) in Makila 1784.

the cairns reflect some activity, which could be seen as a reason for the historical
village to be situated on this particular spot?
So far there is no answer to the question. In 1997 a small-scale trial investigation
was conducted in the village of Makila, close to the actual sites of the houses, to
determine the possibilities of archaeological research concerning the Historical
Period village. The investigation consisted of the digging of twelve test pits and
the gathering of surface finds from the field area. The results of the investigation
were meagre. Retrieved (TYA 645:1-10) and uncatalogued finds told of life and
work in the historical village, but details relating to time or specific activities were
sparse. Not a single find, for instance, can be considered medieval, which probably
indicates, that the area of prospection did not include the main settlement areas of
the Middle Ages. Prehistoric activity is suggested only by a stone flake (TYA 645:6)
retrieved from one of the fields.55

55
Problems with regard to sparse finds in Historical Period settlement sites have also
been experienced in settlement site excavations on the coast and in the archipelago of
Uusimaa, east of the present study area. Typologically datable artefacts may be next to
nonexistent, the only common finds in early historical contexts often being pieces of
burned clay (Alenius et al. 2004: 10-11; Jansson 2005: 68-69; Haggrén 2005b: 92).

139
 Nevertheless, it seems that at Makila something essential appears regarding the
settlement development of Kemiönsaari – a certain model of periods and phenomena
that can be identified. Represented here are four periods: two older and two more
recent. The Bronze Age type cairn at Majberget and the Pre-Roman settlement
represents the older periods – a continuity of utilization of the Kemiönsaari area
having its roots back in the Stone Age. After a phase sparse in finds, new traces of
activity appear in the Viking Age, followed by the forming, finally, of the village in
the Historical Period.

3.6. Other Iron Age archipelago finds – a comparison

3.6.1. Stray finds

The small amount of Iron Age finds from Kemiönsaari is comparable with the
quantity of Iron Age finds in other parts of the archipelago. Similarly to Kemiö,
one elliptical fire striking stone (NM 10958:2; Asplund 2000: Bild 36) has been
found in Parainen. The site of the find, a field in Vannais, illustrates how these
items occasionally were deposited. The object might have moved somewhat in
connection with tillage, but as the whole field is on a low elevation, it is probable
that the stone was thrown into the sea during the Iron Age. This occurred in an
area almost totally surrounded by islands or close to a small island inside a bay
(Asplund 2000: 54-55, Bild 37). This is not unique – in many cases similar objects
have been found in cleared wetlands or in areas close to the shoreline (Pellinen
1999: 31).
One Migration Period barbed spearhead (NM 13619; Asplund 2000: Bild 38) has
also been found in Parainen, at Malmgatan in Kyrkomalm. Equivalent artefacts
have mostly been found in cemeteries together with Migration Period objects; in
only one case a dating to the early Merovingian Period has been regarded as more
probable. In addition to the find from Parainen and a similar find from Maalahti in
Ostrobothnia, all other spearheads of this type have been found in Häme (Pihlman
1990: 122-126). They are lacking in the Migration period cemeteries in Finland
Proper, which makes it difficult to directly associate the find from Parainen with
visitors from the nearby parishes on the mainland. It has also been suggested
that the Malmgatan find could indicate the existence of a cemetery somewhere
at Kyrkomalm (Tuovinen 1990a: 70). There are, however, no further observations
supporting such a theory. Furthermore, the place of discovery of the Malmgatan

140
find is situated on such a low elevation that a cemetery could not have been built
on this location during the Iron Age.56
A couple of Viking Age finds are also known from Parainen. In addition to one
Viking Age axe from Jermo (dealt with more closely below) there is information
on a Viking Age or Crusade Period silver hoard found in Parainen around 1830.
According to minutes of the Finnish Antiquarian Society from 1897, the collection
of the vicar Gabriel Wallenius had included 15 Arabic and Anglo-Saxon coins from
a hoard found in Parainen. Wallenius’ coins were later sold to the merchant Karl
Michelson in St. Petersburg, whose collection was donated to the University of
Helsinki in 1880 (Talvio 1994: 53; 2002: 142). At that time, the coins from Parainen
were no longer part of the collection. Even if no detailed description of the coins is
available, it is likely that the hoard was deposited during the 11th century or later.
A probable Crusade Period find is known from Björkholm in Nauvo. It is a
sword with a spherical knob and a long hilt, dated to the 12th century (NM 5215;
Meinander 1983: 237; Fagerlund 1992: 14-15). This dating can be regarded as the
earliest possible – similar swords were still used in the early Middle Ages. Another
sword find, from Stufsund in Särkisalo, has also previously been dated to the Iron
Age (Granholm & Häggblom 1969: 5). This sword represents an even younger type
with a knob in the form of a double-cone or pear, which belongs to the 15th or 16th
century. Possible sword finds in Parainen and Houtskari (outside the present study
area) have also been mentioned, but these objects disappeared before investigation
(Tuovinen 1990a: 70).

3.6.2. Late Iron Age axes

In addition to the above-mentioned fire striking stones, there is another specific

group of Iron Age objects often found in peripheral areas. These are Late Iron Age
axes. In the archipelago within the study area three Viking Age axes have been found
– two as stray finds and one at the Kyrksundet trading site. The best-documented
find is the axe from Jermo in Parainen (Pargas hembygdsmuseum 2869). It was

56
In addition to the find from Kyrkomalm, only two other spearheads from the archipelago
(TMM 6095-6096), found on the island Luonnonmaa at Naantali (outside the present
study area), have previously been classified to the Early or Middle Iron Age (Cleve
1948: 502). These items have a leaf shaped blade and a tang instead of a socket for fitting
the shaft. This type can hardly be dated to the Early Iron Age but rather belongs to the
8th century AD (cf. Salmo 1938: 241-247, Tafel VI:5). The two spearheads were donated
to the museum in Turku together, which indicates that they were found at the same
site. More detailed information concerning the context of the find is unfortunately not
available. This is the only Merovingian Period find in the archipelago close to the study
area.

141
 found about five metres above the
present sea level, which means that
the axe was deposited close to the Iron
Age shoreline. The object represents a
Finnish type characterised by a straight
backside and extensions only on the shaft
side of the shaft-hole (Fig. 58). Often the
extensions are only small cornered bends,
as in the case of the Jermo axe (Asplund
2000: 58). Axes of this type are dated to
the Viking Age on the basis of cemetery
finds (Wuolijoki 1972: 22-23, 66, Kuva 24;
cf. Kivikoski 1973: Abb. 877). At least 50
axes representing this variant are known,
most of them from Häme and Satakunta.
In Finland Proper these axes are rare.
Only a few have been found, one (TMM
12388) from the island Luonnonmaa at
Naantali, one (KM 2436:19) from Paimio,
and two (KM 9389:7-8) from Halikko.
The Luonnonmaa axe is an archipelago
find, the find context of which is similar
to that of the Jermo axe. It was found
Fig. 58. Viking Age axe (Pargas hem­bygds­
during garden work in sterile soil at an
museum 2869) from Jermo in Parainen.
elevation of over five metres above the
present-day sea level.
The Jermo axe was conserved at the University of Turku in 1989. A thick layer
of corrosion was removed with the help of electrolysis and the original surface
of the object was revealed. It appeared that the surface had a black soot patina,
which indicates that it has been in contact with fire or soot before it was deposited
at the find spot. If the soot had occurred at the site where the axe had been lying
for a thousand years, it would have been visible also in the corrosion layer. It is
impossible to know why the axe had been burned, but one possibility is that it had
originally been part of a cremation or had been deposited in a cremation cemetery.
It could also have been part of some other kind of ritual involving fire.
Axes from the Late Iron Age are relatively common finds outside the central
settlement areas. Altogether over 500 axes from this period are known, about half of
which have been found in contexts other than cemeteries (Wuolijoki 1972: 40). One
explanation for this is that axes were essential tools outdoors and in the wilderness.

142
Some axes were lost or deliberately left behind. However, there are cases suggesting
that some axes must have been deposited due to other than functional reasons. The
most outstanding site is situated in Karelia, on the island Villapekko, where no less
than 49 axes have been found – many of which as single finds without additional
objects (Wuolijoki 1972: 39-40; Uino 1997: 247). The site has been interpreted as a
hoard (Saksa 1998: 148-149) or a sacrificial site (Lehtosalo-Hilander 1984: 385; Uino
1997: 247), the latter interpretation of which seems more plausible. One explanation
given for single axe finds is that they would have been related to rituals of slash-
and-burn cultivation (Taavitsainen 1990: 67).
Axes in distinctive find contexts are known also from southwestern Finland.
For example, the two axes from Halikko, which are of the same type as the axe
from Jermo, are part of a hoard from Kaikumäki (KM 9389:1-28; KM 9510:1-8; KM
10329:1-2; Halikon kotiseutumuseo 740). A group of weapons – mostly spearheads
– as well as some other items have been found here. One of the axes is almost
identical with the axe from Jermo.57 The Kaikumäki find can be interpreted either
as a hidden hoard or an offering. The latter explanation is more plausible as the
objects were found in clayey soil near a small wetland area. In this case the offering
is a combination of many objects, but also many of the single axes found are most
likely to be sacrificial in character. The burned axe from Jermo can probably be best
explained this way.

3.6.3. Temporary shelters

One category of archipelagic sites introduced and discussed in southwestern Finnish

archaeology especially by Tuovinen (e.g. 1990a: 78-81; 2000a: 29-31; 2002a: 56) are
constructions belonging to temporary shelters, which are often referred to using
the Swedish term tomtning (e.g. Norman 1995: 44-52). The sites are characterized
by simple stonewalls or fences laid of boulders, often close to a rocky wall, thus
forming a round or rectangular floor space. These are probably temporary shelters
used by fishermen and seal hunters. In Sweden over 3500 such remains have been
recorded, about 1250 of which on the eastern coast (Landin & Rönnby 2003: 7; cf.
Norman 1993: 30). Tomtning sites occur also in the archipelago of the Åland Islands
(Karlsson 1990: 92-95). In the archipelago of Finland Proper about thirty have been
registered (Tuovinen 2000a: 29; 2002a: 56).

57
The Kaikumäki finds have been characterised as Scandinavian (Hirviluoto 1992: 74),
which is not correct – the axes are, as stated above, of a Finnish type and the E- as well as
F-type spearheads included in the find are simple forms most probably locally made.

143
 On the Swedish coast of Norrland the oldest radiocarbon dates from such
sites are from the Migration Period and several have yielded Late Iron Age dates
(Broadbent 1989; Norman 1993: 40, 48; cf. Tuovinen 2000a: 29; 2002a: 56). Especially
the Late Iron Age as a period of use of tomtning sites has been emphasized, as sites
dated to the Viking Period occur all along the Swedish east coast, from Blekinge
in the south to Västerbotten in the north (Landin & Rönnby 2003). On the other
hand there are many tomtning sites on such low elevations above sea level that they
must be from the Historical Period. Also recent oral tradition related to the use of
tomtning sites has been documented.58
Regarding sites in the archipelago of the Åland Islands it has been noted that
some sites occur on elevations that make it possible (and even probable) that they
could be prehistoric (Karlsson 1990: 95). The possibility that some of the tomtning
sites could be fairly old has been expressed also concerning sites in the archipelago
of the study area, i.e. sites situated high above the present sea level (Tuovinen 2000a:
29; 2002a: 56). In a survey within the Southwestern Archipelago National Park 1994-
1997 by Tuovinen twenty tomtning sites were registered with a height above sea
level varying from 1.4 to 11.4 metres; it has been noted, however, that on the bigger
islands closer to the coast there are sites situated over 20 metres above sea level
(Tuovinen 2000a: 29, Kuva 5). The highest lying site registered so far is probably
the one in Makila mentioned before,
which is situated approximately 40
metres above sea level. Another site
lying quite high above water level was
found and investigated in Västermälö
in Parainen in 2001.
The Västermälö Vestergård site is
a typical tomtning in the sense that it
is situated in a corner of a steep cliff,
which gives the outline of two walls
0 2m
of the construction (Fig. 59). The cleft
in the very corner of the rock has been
Fig. 59. The remains of a temporary shelter
(tomtning) at Västermälö Vestergård in Pa­ filled with stones and the remaining
rainen. walls indicated by boulders and

58
Somewhat confusing is the fact that the tomtning term has also been used for stone-
paved hut constructions of the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Holmblad 2007: 156). If used as a
concept defining only a construction related to seasonal maritime hunting it might be
understandable in some cases, but usually the term does not refer to a hut or some other
more complex construction. It is generally restricted to the remains of light shelters
from the later parts of the Iron Age and the Historical Period, the location and simple
stone borders of which tend to differ from Early Metal Period constructions.

144
smaller stones tiled upon each other thus forming a more or less rectangular floor
space of about 10 m2. In addition to the stones, the eastern wall has been improved
with a bank of soil. After clearing the remains of trees and other vegetation the
construction was documented and about half of the floor space excavated. The
excavated area was the western half of the floor, where the layer of earth above the
bedrock seemed thinner. During excavation no explicit floor could be identified,
but the soil layer within the construction was clearly mixed, consisting of both
clayey and coarse ingredients, coloured here and there by soot lenses. No artefacts
were found; only some pieces of hard-burned charcoal (TYA 788:1-4) were collected.
Some stones (TYA 788:5) looked fire-cracked, but the interpretation is not definite.
A radiocarbon dating made from pieces of charcoal gave the result 350 ± 30
BP (Su-3599), i.e. 1460-1640 cal AD. One could, of course, discuss the relevance of
the date as it is unsure what it represents – it is not from a hearth or some other
identifiable context within the excavation area. As the pieces of charcoal were
found mixed within the layer interpreted as reflecting activity within the tomtning,
it would, however, seem unlikely that the construction is much older than the
charcoal. At least this is the best dating so far available for the site. This means that
a prehistoric dating for a tomtning site within the southwestern Finnish archipelago
is still missing.

3.6.4. Viking Age – a period of activity in the archipelago?

The sparse Iron Age finds from the archipelago roughly point out two periods – the
Migration Period and the Viking Age (Fig. 60). The stray finds are so few that this
might be a coincidence, but as to the Viking Age, the chronological distribution
is also supported by other finds and observations. This can be compared with
material from the mainland settlement areas, showing a distribution where the
Viking Age is accentuated as a period rich in objects deposited outside cemeteries
and settlement sites (Fig. 61). The same tendency can be seen in Satakunta, Häme
and Savo; in Karelia Crusade Period finds are dominant, but even there the number
of finds increases as early as the Viking Age (Taavitsainen 1990: 63-65; 71-72; 74-76;
Taavitsainen et al. 1998: 215-217).
Regarding the Migration Period finds from the archipelago, it should be
pointed out that – except for the fire-striking stones from Helgeboda in Kemiö and
Vannais in Parainen – there is only the spearhead from Malmgatan in Parainen to
suggest Migration Period use of the study area. This is hardly enough to prove
any growing interest in the archipelago during this time. With regard to activities
in the archipelago, the Migration Period has previously been accentuated due to

145
a few spectacular finds from the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland (Kivikoski
1940), as well as one cemetery in the southwestern Finnish archipelago somewhat
reminiscent of mainland grave forms, which has earlier been dated to this period
(e.g. Tuovinen 1990a: 58; 1997: 20). This Hyppeis Furunabb cemetery in Houtskari
(outside the current study area) was investigated in 1979, 1981 and 1986. At the site
there are 12 (according to other sources 14) low cairns or stone settings, several of

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ERA LRA MIG MER VA CRU
Fire striking stones 0,34 0,66 0,66 0,34 0 0
Other 0 0 1 0 2,5 1

Fig. 60. Iron Age stray find sites according to period in

the archipelago (Dragsfjärd, Kemiö, Nauvo, Parainen and
Västanfjärd). If a find may relate to two periods it has been
given the value 0.5 for both. Due to the long period of use of
fire striking stones they have been divided between periods
according to the values 0.17-0.33-0.33-0.17.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
ERA LRA MIG MER VA CRU
Fire striking stones 5,27 10,23 10,23 5,27 0 0
Other 2 1 4 12,5 62,5 15

Fig. 61. Iron Age stray find sites according to period on

the mainland (Halikko, Kuusjoki, Muurla, Paimio, Perniö,
Pertteli, Piikkiö, Salo, Sauvo, Särkisalo). If a find may relate
to two periods it has been given the value 0.5 for both. Due
to the long period of use of fire striking stones they have been
divided between periods according to the values 0.17-0.33-
0.33-0.17.

146
which were excavated. Three cairns contained burned bones and in one cairn a piece
of iron was found (Tuovinen 1990a: 57-59; 2002a: 49-51). The finds give no direct
dating evidence, but some of the stone settings have been regarded as reminiscent
of Migration Period grave forms. Furunabb has also been compared with an Early
Iron Age cemetery at Västra Nabbergen in Eckerö in the Åland Islands. In the most
recent discussion on the Furunabb cemetery by Tuovinen (2002a: 182-184), it has
been given a general dating to the Early Iron Age. During the present study this
was confirmed by the results of radiocarbon dates obtained from the burned bones,
indicating that the site is from the latter half of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The idea
of a Migration Period dating for the site thus must be rejected. The datings will
be discussed further in chapter 6.6.3. dealing with the general notion of Iron Age
cairns in the archipelago.
There are not many Viking Age finds with reliable information either. If the
silver hoard from Parainen is accepted there is a total of three cases from within
the study area, of which the silver hoard could actually also date to the Crusade
Period. The two other cases are the axes from Hiittinen and Jermo. In addition to
these, the Luonnonmaa axe (from outside the study area) could be mentioned. It
should also be noted that, in addition to the stray finds, there are other indications
of a more active utilisation of the archipelago during this period. As previously
mentioned, some of the cairns in the archipelago must belong to the Late Iron Age
at the earliest. In addition to the whetstone find from the cairn at Stora Ängeskär in
Dragsfjärd, two cairns excavated at Nötö Sundbergen in Nauvo in 1988 have given
even better examples of this. In one of the cairns fragments of a comb made of antler
were found, and in the other one some iron rivets (Tuovinen 1990a: 53-57; 2002a:
87-91). The cairns have been dated to the Late Iron Age; the most probable date for
the comb fragment is the Viking Age. The fact that cairns have been built during
the Viking Age (or, with reference to a couple of the radiocarbon dates, possibly
the Late Merovingian Period) is furthermore indicated by the abovementioned
finds from Kokkila in Halikko and the radiocarbon dates from Makila in Kemiö
as well as the Koupo Rösbacken site in Parainen. Regardless of the still sparse find
material, one has the impression that the Late Iron Age – especially the Viking
Age – meant something new for the conditions in the archipelago. The Viking Age
seems to be an expressive and active period also on the mainland. What we see is
probably a reflection of intensified trade and increasing wealth, in combination
with population growth and an escalated interest in outlying resource areas as well
as new areas for permanent settlement.
It is paradoxical that Iron Age finds and indications of utilisation occur most for
the Viking Age, which has often been regarded as a period when the archipelago
might have been impossible to settle, due to the risk of raids and other forms of

147
hostility (e.g. Nikander 1942: 30; Meinander 1983: 232; Suistoranta 1985: 5; Orrman
1990a: 211-212, 222). The theory of insecurity has been offered also as a general
explanation for the sparse Iron Age finds. For example, Salo (e.g. 1970: 161-
162; 1995a: 2-5; 2004a: 5) has on several occasions discussed coastal settlement
development in Finland during the Iron Age. Founding his interpretation on the
lack of Post-Roman cemeteries in Uusimaa and the coasts of Satakunta, as well
as the almost total lack of cemeteries in the archipelago of Finland Proper, he
has supported a theory, according to which the coastal zone was too insecure to
allow permanent settlement during several periods of the Iron Age. The insecurity
of Finland Proper (and Häme) has furthermore been stressed with reference to
the distribution of silver hoards (e.g. Salo 2000a: 155, 165). Settling on the open
coasts and in the archipelago would, according to Salo (1995a: 26), have been more
attractive from the start of the 13th century, when Finland Proper became a part of
the Swedish kingdom and the western threat vanished.
The risk of aggression did undoubtedly exist, but on the other hand one could
imagine that the Viking Age rather stimulated than prevented a more active interest
in the archipelago – both by the population living in the mainland settlement areas
as well as foreign people travelling along the coasts of the Gulf of Finland. This is
what the Kyrksundet trading site signifies. The Viking Age was not only a period of
population growth and settlement expansion, but also a new period of contacts and
widening of the worldview of people in the Baltic area. Once again there was reason
to re-evaluate attitudes towards the surrounding world and the landscape. What
is probably also reflected in the increasing number of finds from the Viking Age is
an intensification of utilization of various resources – both marine and agricultural
– in the periphery. This probably led to a new relationship towards outlying areas.
An increased mobility in combination with a new striving for control of places and
landscapes may be one reason for cairn building and an increased number of items
deposited outside cemeteries and settlement sites during the Viking Age.

3.7. The Iron Age on the mainland

3.7.1. Cemeteries, settlement sites and stray finds

The study of settlement development in southwestern Finland from the Roman

Period onwards has to be based chiefly on the use of cemetery materials, since the
settlement sites are more difficult to date than the excavated cemeteries. Relying
on cemetery materials is a problematic approach, as cemeteries do not necessarily
give the total picture of the number and location of settlement units. In the case

148
of southwestern Finland it has, for example, been suggested that permanent
settlement has existed in areas not reflected in the distribution of cemeteries, both in
the archipelago (Tuovinen 2002a) and on the mainland (Pihlman 2004). Apart from
this, the interpretation of the cemetery sites themselves also pose many problems.
During the Roman Period several new types of burial rituals were introduced; for
this reason many different grave types have been typified (e.g. Salo 1968: 183-197),
only some of which are distinguishable above ground. After the Migration Period,
the general trend was for grave types to change from single cairns, stone settings
and other minor structures towards larger cremation or inhumation cemeteries on
or below the ground. It is obvious that single graves and cemeteries from different
periods are not directly comparable, due both to the varying possibilities of locating
different types of remains and to the different relations between grave structures
and the number of settlement units or number of people they might represent.
Local differences in grave rituals also add to the uncertainty.
The research area contains 148 sites that can be classified as Iron Age cemeteries
or cairns, 81 of which have been properly identified. The cairns have proved most
difficult to date. Those shown on the map are sites with a low elevation (which also
makes a Historical Period dating possible) and a few cairns with an archaeological
dating to the Iron Age AD (Fig. 62). A total of 40 of the 50 cairns have been registered
with a question mark, referring to the uncertainty of classification or – more usually




































 











































 




 














 







 








 





 



 
 
















 





































































 
 









 
 



 



















 

 





Koupo 























 Kokkila


 








 










































Makila 































 Nötö








 




 Cemetery
Stora Ängeskär





















 Uncertain cemetery
 Stray find





 


 Cairn


 
0 




 20 km



 

 



 



 









 Uncertaincairn
 Uncertain stray find







Fig. 62. Iron Age AD cemeteries and cairns in the research area.
‘Uncertainty’ refers to reservations as to site type or dating.

149
 


































 


 



 












 




 
































 




 


 

 








































 Hill-site
0 20 km





 Uncertain hill-site

Fig. 63. Cup-marked stones within the research area.

– the actual dating of the cairn. The general impression of the distribution is that the
cemeteries form clusters on the mainland, while the archipelago is sparse in sites
that can be identified as Iron Age graves with certainty. Regarding the archipelago
cairns, the number of sites is, however, most probably underrepresented. If the
grouping presented by Tuovinen is accepted, the picture would change radically
as over half of all cairns in the archipelago would be from the Iron Age, thus filling
the archipelago with sites (e.g. Tuovinen 2002a: Fig. 62).
Another group of sites that has a distribution pattern similar to that of the
cemeteries is cup-marked stones. A total of 55 sites with cup-marked stones, 47 of
which have been verified as to site type and location, have been registered within
the study area. All of these are located on the mainland, mostly close to Iron Age
cemeteries and settlement sites (Fig. 63). The distribution pattern indicates cup-
marked stones as a feature occurring in central settlement areas, most likely related
to permanent settlement and maybe specifically to rituals performed within areas
of permanent field cultivation. Whatever the reason behind the making of the
cups, the distribution pattern is one more indication of the difference between the
mainland and the archipelago.
One often repeated statement in the past was that only few Iron Age settlement
sites had been found on the southwestern Finnish mainland. One reason for this
may have been that archaeologists were looking for building remains or other
structures. Things have changed since it was realised that Iron Age settlement sites

150
can be distinguished not only in the form of preserved cultural layers but as artefact
clusters observed during fieldwalking and other types of closer surveys. Many sites
have been identified on the basis of coarse ceramics of a type that came into use
in the Late Roman Period (Carpelan 1979: 10-11) and stayed in use throughout the
Iron Age. Pottery of a similar type has also been found in medieval contexts datable
as late as to the 14th century (Luoto & Pihlman 1980: 45-46; Pihlman 1982: 111;
Taavitsainen 1990: 127, 223; Enqvist 2005; Lehtonen & Uotila 2005). The time-span
of use of this type of pottery is thus wider than the Iron Age alone, but presumably
many of these sites still belong to the Iron Age.
There proved to be several settlement sites from the Iron Age (or the Middle Ages,
if identified on the basis of pottery alone) within the present study area. The total
number is 69 sites (the Pre-Roman sites excluded), 28 of which have been marked
as uncertain. Many of the uncertain cases are scatters of a few Iron Age (or possibly
medieval) artefacts found in present-day fields. The distribution (Fig. 64) is quite
similar to the distribution of Iron Age cemeteries, but even more clustered. This
may partly be due to field routines. Settlement sites have been searched for more
actively in central settlement areas than at the periphery. As settlement site remains
are more difficult to recognise than grave finds, the possibility cannot be excluded
that Iron Age settlement sites have a wider distribution than is known. However, so






 
























 





























 
 




 







 

 




















































 








 
 

















 












































































 Cemetery





 Uncertain cemetery



 Kyrksundet  Settlement site





0 20 km  Cairn













 Uncertain
 Uncertain settlement site
cairn

Fig. 64. Iron Age AD (in some cases possibly medieval) settlement sites
in the research area. ‘Uncertainty’ refers to reservations as to site type
or dating.

151
far not a single site has been clearly identified outside the central settlement areas
on the mainland, with the exception of the trading site at Kyrksundet.
There are only vague ideas as to how near the cemeteries the actual settlement
sites were situated. In a Swedish Late Iron Age study by Callmer (1986), cemeteries
were used as indirect indications of settlement within 250 metres of the cemetery.
A similar definition may be applicable to the Finnish material as well. Many of
the known settlement sites are likely to support such a model. On the other hand,
there are cases where known settlement sites seem to be clearly outside the 250
metre limit. If the Huttalanmäki site in Piikkiö was used during the Roman Period,
as indicated by radiocarbon datings, it was situated on the opposite side of the
microregion from the Roman Period cemeteries. The distance is over 2 kilometres.
Another example in the same area is offered by the indications of settlement at
Bussila, situated two kilometres upstream from the nearest known cemeteries
(Asplund 1988). Even if a general settlement site / cemetery relationship is probable,
examples like these indicate that some settlement sites may lie further away from
cemeteries. How far away such outlying settlement sites actually may have been
situated is an open question, as is the relationship between outlying settlement sites
and the cemeteries. Due to the relatively small number of cemeteries compared with
expected population numbers, it seems evident that not everyone was buried in the
types of cemeteries we know archaeologically from the central settlement areas.














 














 








 Cemetery





 Uncertain cemetery
 Cemetery




0 20 km  Cairn













 Uncertaincairn
 Uncertain cemetery

Fig. 65. Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries in the research area.

152
 












 




























































 Cemetery





 Uncertain cemetery
 Cemetery




0 20 km  Cairn














 Uncertaincairn
 Uncertain cemetery

Fig. 66. Late Roman Iron Age ce­me­teries in the research area.










 









































 


























 Cemetery





 Uncertain cemetery
 Cemetery



0 20 km




 Cairn









 Uncertaincairn
 Uncertain cemetery

Fig. 67. Migration Period cemeteries in the research area.

153
This suggests that there existed farms without cemeteries, probably including also
outlying permanent or semi-permanent settlement sites. As suggested by Pihlman
(2004), the people living at these sites might have been part of the mortuary rituals
of some other farm (like their old home farm, for example), or some area or group
of farms acting as a ritual centre.
In order to arrive at a rough overview of the development of utilisation of the
research area during the Iron Age AD, cemetery distribution maps for each period
have been constructed. These indicate that Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries
containing grave goods are known only in the western part of the study area, in
Paimio, Piikkiö and Sauvo (Fig. 65) 59. On the map for the Late Roman Period (Fig.
66), cemeteries also show up in Perniö and Salo. In the western part of the area,







































































 Cemetery





 Uncertain cemetery
 Cemetery





0 20 km  Cairn














 Uncertaincairn
 Uncertain cemetery

Fig. 68. Merovingian Period cemeteries in the research area.

59
The datings applied are typological datings based on the metal objects occurring in the
cemeteries. A possibility for dating and comparisons with earlier dates is provided by
radiocarbon dating of burned bone. A first example of this from within the study area
is provided by a couple of radiocarbon datings from the Meriniitynpuisto cemetery
in Salo. The typologically datable artefacts from this site quite consistently represent
Late Roman Iron Age forms. One radiocarbon dating of burned bone supports this
dating, but the result of a dating from another cremated individual goes back to the
Early Roman Iron Age (Pesonen 2006). The dating results are 1725 ± 50 BP (Hela-997),
i.e. 130-430 cal AD and 1930 ± 50 BP (Hela 883), i.e. 50 cal BC – 220 cal AD if using the
95.4% probability. This indicates that there may be Early Roman burials in the Late
Roman Iron Age cemeteries of the eastern part of the mainland study area which are not
distinguishable due to the lack or scarcity of grave goods.

154
Migration Period cemeteries are known from Paimio and Piikkiö, but not from
Sauvo; in the east new cemeteries now turn up in Halikko, Muurla and the northern
part of Perniö, in addition to the areas of Perniö and Salo identified earlier (Fig. 67).
Merovingian Period cemeteries are present in all of the areas mentioned, with the
exception of Muurla (Fig. 68).
The distribution of cemeteries can be compared with the map showing stray
finds with known locations (Fig. 51), as well as with the total distribution of Iron
Age metal stray find sites according to municipality (Fig. 69). The latter map is of
course not at all detailed, but it contains information from twentytwo sites, while
the more detailed map shows only eight comparable sites. The general stray find
distribution is similar to the distribution of cemeteries, except for one stray find site
in the Parainen archipelago. A similar map showing the distribution of fire-striking
stones according to municipality (Fig. 70) was also created. It contains information
on 33 sites, while the earlier presentation of finds with known locations contained
17. The general idea, however, does not change. The most interesting occurrences
of fire-striking stones outside the main distribution of cemeteries, i.e. those in the
archipelago together with Pertteli and Muurla (as well as a couple of finds from

20

10
2

Fig. 69. Iron Age stray find sites

containing metal items dated to AD 0- 0 20 km

800 according to municipality.

20

10
2

Fig. 70. Stray find sites where fire-

striking stones have been found, 0 20 km
according to municipality.

155
 











 























 




 




 










 









 
 




















 








 






































 Cemetery


 



 Cairn
 Cemetery
0 20 km 




 Uncertain


 Cairn cemetery





 Uncertain cemetery
Fig. 71. Viking Age cemeteries and cairns in the research area.

Perniö and Särkisalo), already appear on the more detailed map shown earlier (Fig.
51). These few occurrences are indications of an interest in areas outside the central
settlement areas during the periods preceding the Viking Age.
A comparison of the maps of cemeteries from the Late Roman Period to the
Merovingian period shown above and the map of Viking Age cemeteries (Fig. 71)
reveals a general resemblance. One Migration Period cemetery at Äijälä in Muurla
seems to have vanished, but this may be deceptive. One type G spearhead (KM
4409:2) found close to the cemetery might indicate the continuation of settlement and
burial in the area. This type of spearhead is commonly dated to the (late) Viking
Age and the 11th century (Kivikoski 1973: 115-116, Tafel 99:858-859; cf. Taavitsainen
1990: 188-189). Minor changes can also be detected in the Halikko area, where the
southernmost Kaninkola cemetery from the Migration Period has disappeared and
a new Viking Age cemetery appears at Muntola, to the east of the cemeteries known
from the Merovingian Period. Apart from this the only notable new cemeteries are
situated at Pertteli, northeast of the Salo settlement area. These few cases are quite
unexpectedly the only apparent indications of settlement expansion during the
Viking Age reflected in the large-scale distribution of dated cemeteries. Crusade
Period cemeteries do not add much to the picture either; all of the identified cases
(Fig. 72) are situated in regions distinguishable on the basis of Viking Age cemeteries.
The map showing the distribution of Viking Age and Crusade Period stray find sites

156
 







 










 














































 Cemetery





 Uncertain cemetery
 Cemetery




0 20 km  Cairn













 Uncertaincairn
 Uncertain cemetery

Fig. 72. Crusade Period cemeteries in the research area.

according to municipality (Fig. 73), however, shows an increase in the number of sites
as well as a small areal expansion towards the archipelago in comparison with the
distribution of earlier stray find sites. Here the total amount is 84 sites, 50 of which
have a known location and were shown on the more detailed map (Fig. 53) above.
A new period of activity in the archipelago during the Viking Age was discussed
above. The Iron Age cairns in the archipelago, usually referred to as graves, were
shown on the map of Iron Age
cemeteries. It is rather interesting 20

that all of the six cases dated 10

2
by artefacts or by the means of
radiocarbon dating may actually
belong to the same period – the
Viking Age. Although the material
is limited, the cairn ritual could be
something related to Late Iron Age
outland areas and the archipelago.
0 20 km

The only Late Iron Age cairn site

on the mainland is the Kokkila Fig. 73. Iron Age stray find sites AD 800-1200
site discussed above, situated in according to municipality.

157
the southernmost part of Halikko, close to the strait separating Kemiönsaari from
the mainland. The other dated cairns are situated in Kemiö, Dragsfjärd (Hiittinen),
Nauvo and Parainen (if the stone construction at Koupo Rösbacken is accepted
as a cairn). Six sites are not a large number, but since not a single cemetery of
the mainland types has been found on the island of Kemiönsaari or in the nearby
archipelago, this may indicate a genuine difference between cemetery rituals in
the old central settlement areas and cairn rituals in the coastal periphery. This
does not necessarily mean that mainland cemeteries and cairns are different forms
of sites with the same function, i.e. different grave forms, or that they were built
by different people. Mainland cemeteries most likely form the bond between the
cultivated land, the ancestors and the living population of the permanent farm or
village, while Late Iron Age cairns may relate to different landscapes and ideas.

3.7.2. Settlement development

When looking a little more closely at the numbers and dates of mainland cemetery
sites within each municipality, a somewhat more detailed picture emerges of changes
in burial rituals and settlement development. As noted above, the development
of the total number of cemetery sites is biased by the greater number of single
graves or cemetery structures during the Roman Iron Age and the Migration
Period compared with later periods. Thus comparability between periods is not
easily achieved without detailed studies of individual microregions. One general

30

20

10

0
ERIA LRIA MIG MER VA CRU

Sites Villages

Fig. 74. Total number of Iron Age cemetery sites AD 1-1200 on the mainland per period
compared with the number of present-day villages containing Iron Age cemeteries.

158
comparison can be drawn by calculating only the number of present-day villages
with cemeteries from different periods (Fig. 74). Such a comparison implies that the
Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period are characterised by the occurrence
of several cemetery sites or grave structures within a few present-day villages,
while the Viking Age witnessed cemeteries in an increasing number of areas.
This view is probably overly simplified; some present-day villages clearly
constitute cemeteries distant from each other, indicating the existence of several
settlement units. In other cases, separate grave structures close to each other can
be defined as forming single cemeteries. A more accurate picture of settlement
development could probably be achieved if the most obvious cases of groups of
single grave structures were evaluated by taking into account the distance between
sites. Such cases might be Spurila in Paimio (Asplund 1985: 468) and Lupaja in
Perniö (Salmo 1980: 48-49; cf. Sarvas 1980: 97), as well as Isokylä in Salo (Schauman-
Lönnqvist 1989: 78-81). The main trends, however, remain the same: the total
number of cemeteries within the study area increases from the Early Roman Iron
Age to the Late Roman Iron Age and (partly) to the Migration Period, and declines
during the Merovingian Period. A new increase in the number of cemeteries during
the Viking Age is followed by a decline towards the end of the Iron Age. The whole
trend is quite similar to general ideas of Iron Age development in southwestern
Finland.
There are, however, discrepancies between different parts of the study area
if the development of cemeteries is viewed according to the lines of present-
day municipalities. A notable difference, seen already in the maps above, is that
Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries are known from Paimio, Piikkiö and Sauvo in
the western part of the study area, while there are none in the municipalities of
Halikko, Perniö and Salo in the east. This suggests that a cemetery ritual involving
the deposition of metal objects was not introduced simultaneously in the whole
study area of the mainland. This is one indication of a divergence between the
western and eastern areas during the early periods of the Iron Age. Such a difference
between the eastern part of the study area and the rest of Finland Proper has also
been pointed out by Hirviluoto (1991: 138-139) on the basis of Iron Age material
culture in the Halikonlahti area. Her conclusion is that during the earlier periods of
the Iron Age, the Halikonlahti area was not part of the organization that was later to
develop into the province of Finland Proper. The material culture later converged,
and by the end of the Viking Period and the Crusade Period the material culture
of the Halikonlahti area and the rest of Finland Proper was more or less uniform
(Hirviluoto 1991: 189-190).
In addition to the discussion on difference between the eastern and western
part of the mainland study area, it should also be pointed out that the lack of Early

159
Roman Iron Age cemeteries containing grave goods equals the eastern part with
Kemiönsaari and the rest of the archipelago area. In other words, the problem of
lack of Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries can be no more no less a problem on
Kemiönsaari than in the eastern mainland municipalities. In this sense Kemiönsaari
as an area different from the mainland does not really emerge before the Late
Roman Period, when cemeteries also occur in Perniö and Salo.

10

0
ERIA LRIA MIG MER VA CRU

Paimio Piikkiö Sauvo

Fig. 75. Number of Iron Age cemetery sites AD 1-1200 by period in the municipalities
of Paimio, Piikkiö and Sauvo.

10

0
ERIA LRIA MIG MER VA CRU

Halikko Perniö Salo

Fig. 76. Number of Iron Age cemetery sites AD 1-1200 per period in the municipalities
of Halikko, Perniö and Salo.

160
 In both the western (Fig. 75) and the eastern (Fig. 76) mainland area, the
Migration Period shows up as a period sparse in cemeteries – except for Paimio in
the west and Salo in the East. One dominant microregion in the western area and
one in the eastern area is an interesting pattern, but it is not clear what significance
this distribution should be given. It is likely that many of the fluctuations in
the numbers of cemeteries in this comparison are due to differences in research
activity and problems of interpretation. If such a Migration Period expansion in
some microregions and decline in others actually exists as a real trend, however, it
may suggest some kind of increase in the role of the Paimio and Salo areas during
this time. The Migration Period is characterised by fluctuations in the numbers of
cemeteries in other areas as well. In Ostrobothnia this period saw an increase in the
number of cemeteries, while, for instance, in Uusimaa, east of the study area, the
Migration Period seems (statistically) to be a period of decline (Seger 1983; 1984). In
the case of Uusimaa it could be noted, however, that Migration Period cemeteries
occur in the western part (cf. Pihlman 1990: Taulukko 20: 12a-b), i.e. close to the
present study area.
The Merovingian Period decline in the number of cemeteries – here most clearly
exemplified in the case of Paimio and Salo – is usually explained as a result of the
introduction of a new type of cemetery – the cremation cemetery on ground level
– often considered to be an indirect result of village formation (Meinander 1980: 8;
cf. Seger 1983: 190). Other explanations have also been suggested, as in the case of
Salo, where finds from the Late Iron Age are few compared with earlier periods.
According to one theory, the old, dense settlement at Isokylä spread out both
northward and southward (Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 83; cf. Hirviluoto 1991: 162-
163). This would actually turn the village-forming hypothesis upside down as the
Merovingian Period in this case would be considered to be a period of dispersion
and not of settlement agglomeration. The sparsity of Late Iron Age cemeteries and
finds in Salo has also been suggested to be due to changed circumstances in the fur-
hunting areas in Häme or less profitable trade relations (Hirviluoto 1991: 163). This
is not a convincing interpretation, at least with regard to the Viking Age, which
seems to be characterised by a general increase in interaction and exchange.
The mapping of numbers of Viking Age cemeteries according to municipality,
shows, by and large, the same trends as discussed earlier. An increase in the
number of cemeteries can be seen in all present-day municipalities in the central
settlement areas except for Perniö, where the increase is detected somewhat earlier.
One reason for this is probably that some of the Perniö finds from the early Viking
Age fall between periods and have also been taken into account in calculating
Merovingian Period cemeteries. Finally, towards the end of the Iron Age, the
number of cemeteries decreased again in most municipalities.

161
3.8. The Early Iron Age transition – a problem of discontinuity

Chapter 3 has surveyed the archaeological material from the island of Kemiönsaari
as well as some comparative materials from both the archipelago and the mainland.
During this long-term period of comparison, Kemiönsaari seems to develop from a
settlement region and resource area as competitive as the mainland into a periphery
sparse in archaeological finds. As demonstrated above, permanent settlement
in the archipelago was established during the Neolithic. Later, the increased
importance of defining the relationship between people and landscapes during the
Bronze Age is seen in the large number of cairns as clearly in the archipelago as
on the mainland coast. Also a few settlement sites from the Late Bronze Age and
the Pre-Roman Iron Age prove that Kemiönsaari was still inhabited in the same
manner as the mainland areas at that time. After this, settlement development can
be followed mainly in the main river valleys on the mainland, which started more
and more clearly to develop into central areas of settlement. Known settlement
sites, cup-marked stones and cemeteries, on the basis of which Iron Age settlement
development has traditionally been studied, are concentrated into these river
valleys. The difference between Iron Age archipelago and mainland is furthermore
accentuated by the henged hill-sites, some of which seem to have their roots in the
Early Metal Period. They are almost exclusively found in the mainland area – none
have been registered on Kemiönsaari.
Traces of settlement are sparser outside the river valleys and the lack of
cemeteries is especially notable. This reveals a difference in use or position of the
areas outside the river valleys, but hardly a lack of utilisation. The permanently
cultivated fields of the Iron Age may have been situated close to the farmsteads
in the river valley, but farther away there has probably been an extensive mosaic
of pastures, shielings, areas of slash-and-burn cultivation, and hunting camps, all
in varying degrees of utilisation. Some outlying areas may have been inhabited
permanently (cf. Pihlman 2004). In the archipelago there have at least been sites for
trapping and fishing, fowling, and other marine hunting – evidently also pastures
and cultivated plots. Since no significant archaeological materials have remained
to be studied, all of these are poorly known so far. On general grounds it can be
considered likely that permanent settlement existed in the area throughout the Iron
Age (Tuovinen 2002a).
It seems possible, in the central settlement areas of the Iron Age to follow the
large-scale continuous development of farms or villages from the Iron Age to the
historic times. It would appear that roughly the same settlement pattern that is
known from the early Historical Period was born during the Iron Age AD. One
can make such a claim at least when comparing with the locations of Pre-Roman

162
settlement sites, which are in many cases not connected with later settlement sites
and cemeteries. An areal (chorological) continuity of settlement from the Pre-
Roman Iron Age to the later stages of the Iron Age exist in the mainland areas,
but the topographic location of settlement within microregions may have changed
after the beginning of the Iron Age AD.
The changes in site patterns after the Pre-Roman (or Early Roman) Iron Age,
in the light of present-day archaeological research, are significant with regard
to Kemiönsaari, since there seem to be no cemeteries from the Iron Age AD on
the island. This condition could in part be due to the cemeteries not being found
yet, although this can hardly explain the whole situation. If cremation cemeteries
similar to the ones in the mainland river valleys have existed on Kemiönsaari, some
of them should have been found by accident during construction or tillage. Since
this has not happened, a more believable explanation is that during the Iron Age
AD the form of settlement and exploitation of Kemiönsaari, maybe also the role of
the area in some other respect, has differed from the settlement and land-use in the
mainland river valleys.
So far it has not been possible to present a simple reason for the change in the
pattern of archaeological sites after the Pre-Roman (or Early Roman) Iron Age.
The increased significance of cultivation in the economy could be considered as
one possible reason. The reason for the peripheral position of the archipelago in
the Iron Age given by, for example, Hirviluoto (1991: 162) is that the river valleys
of the Halikonlahti area had a more suitable microclimate and provided better
opportunities for the Iron Age economy and way of life. This is a problematic
theory, as the extent to which the mainland river valleys would be considerably
more suitable for agriculture than, for example, the Kemiönsaari area, has so far
not been shown. It is as likely that there were also other reasons for the apparently
more centralised settlement of the mainland. The end result of the process in any
case was that the development of Kemiönsaari differed from that of the mainland.
Kemiönsaari may still have remained an important area of resources, probably
settled and also exploited by the settlers around Halikonlahti bay, but similar groups
of permanent farms practising new forms of cemetery rituals were not formed here.
If permanent settlement occurred in the area it might have been different from the
mainland farms with regard both to the way of life and probably also status. The
situation did not change considerably until the Viking Age when Kemiönsaari and
other archipelagic areas seem to have re-attracted interest or developed in some
other way. The Late Iron Age cairns built and single objects deposited indicate
a new need to establish or signal a presence in the area. This is also generally a
period of widespread interest and expansion into new areas outside old settlement
regions. The Kyrksundet trading site with finds of Scandinavian, Finnish and

163
Estonian origin now suggests the archipelago as a meeting point between voyagers
and people from the mainland.
The most important period concerning the settlement development of
Kemiönsaari is, however, the Early Iron Age, i.e. the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the
Roman Period. What it all comes down to is how to interpret discontinuity. If this
really were to reflect a settlement break or regression, we should not be thinking in
terms of a topographic discontinuity of single settlements or settlement zones, but
of a major areal re-organization. As the differences between Kemiönsaari and the
mainland seem to appear in the Early Iron Age, the answers should be sought from
this specific period. There may have been some influential turn of events just then,
or – perhaps more likely – we are seeing the culmination of long-term processes
of development. This could have been due to local factors, but it is not impossible
that the process of Early Iron Age change can be demonstrated even in regions
more distant than just southwestern Finland. There are, for example, indications
of Early Iron Age settlement discontinuity (or aggregation) from Ostrobothnia,
where some settlement units seem to disappear after the Pre-Roman Period (Mietti­
nen, M. 1998: 148-150). Also concerning Uppland in Sweden, the emergence of a
more concentrated settlement site distribution, related to a social differentia­tion
beginning with the late Pre-Roman Iron Age, has been discussed (Göthberg 2000:
230-233). As a more general parallel one could consider settlement development
on the northern Estonian coast, where similar problems exist conserning Iron Age
settlement continuity (Vedru 2001), as within the present study area.
In the following chapter some natural scientific data will be presented and
the problem of discontinuity of the archeological record will be compared with
palynological results from the study area. After that, some topics of the general
Early Iron Age debate in the Baltic Sea area will be briefly reviewed and some
specific problems of research into the Early Iron Age in Finland examined. One aim
is to consider whether general factors of Early Iron Age development might help to
explain the discontinuity observed in the Kemiönsaari area.

164
4. Environmental studies and osteology

4.1. Shoreline displacement effects

Shoreline displacement, due to land upheaval and eustatic development, has

been a major factor shaping the coastal landscape in southwestern Finland, and of
importance for the location of different types of settlements. In Fennoscandia, land
upheaval is chiefly due to former glacial processes. After the Ice Age land upheaval
was rapid, but since then it has slowed down, which must be added as a factor
when discussing the rate of the process. Calculation of ancient shore level datings
is furthermore complicated by eustatic changes affecting the water level. There is
therefore no simple formula for the calculation of shoreline displacement and no
exact datings can be used; a margin of error of up to ± 200 years always has to be
taken into account, due to general errors regarding the observations and materials
used for shore-level dating (Hatakka & Glückert 2000: 5).
Regarding shoreline displacement in southwestern Finland archaeologists have
for decades benefited from a study by Glückert (1976), based on a large number
of ancient shore observations as well as pollen- and diatomstratigraphy from
thirty peat bog basins. The absolute chronology for the shoreline development was
constructed with the help of radiocarbon datings from isolation contacts in the
basins. Because the study is based on radiocarbon dates it can still be used – also
in the Kemiönsaari case – if the chronology is corrected by means of calibration.

50

40

30

20

10

LN / EBA LBA P

0
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000

Fig. 77. Shore displacement of the Litorina period in the Kemiönsaari

area according to information modified from Glückert (1976). The
diagram shows the one sigma maximum and minumum obtained by
means of calibration. Main periods of the Late Neolithic and the Early
Metal Period are indicated.

165
Such a diagram picturing shore displacement during the Litorina stage in the
Kemiönsaari area shows a generally stable and regressive shore displacement
where small fluctuations indicate (long-term) periods of slightly slower or faster
regression (Fig. 77).60
More recently the picture of shore displacement in southwestern Finland has
become increasingly complicated, as new studies indicate a more rapid regression,
thus making the ancient shorelines older than previously expected.61 Special attention
can be given to a synthesis presented by Hatakka & Glückert (2000) where some
new results (published in closer detail elsewhere) are put together. An important
part of the article is a diagram presenting the general trend of shore displacement
in southwestern Finland, where also the shore displacement applicable to the
Kemiönsaari (Perniö) study area is specified (Hatakka & Glückert 2000: Fig. 6). In
this diagram two features appear that are different from the diagram above. One
is that the shore development curve is smooth, without practically any long-term
eustatic fluctuations. The other is that shore displacement would have been more
rapid, implying a difference of several metres in height or, as regards dating, an age
dissimilarity of up to hundreds of years when compared with previous ideas. If these
datings are correct and the new combined diagram (Hatakka & Glückert 2000: Fig.
6) properly drawn, the consequences for archaeology are huge – sites dated on the
basis of shorelevels must be re-evaluated regarding their dating or their surrounding
environment.
The new shore displacement datings and their impact have not as yet been
thoroughly discussed. The data for the new results were obtained in the 1990’s in
connection with studies especially in the Karjaa-Tammisaari-Perniö area and the

60
The diagram was created from Glückert’s (1976) data and chronology by the means of
calibration, using a tentative error margin of ± 100 years.
61
Along with the new results on shore displacement it may also be noted that the rates
of land uplift have been under discussion. Concerning the Kemiönsaari area, results on
the basis of the precision levelling by the year 1962 indicated land uplift with a rate of
possibly 4.4 mm/yr (Kääriäinen 1963). More recent precision levelling data (cf. Kakkuri
1986: Fig 1; 1992) suggest a much slower rate of around 3.5 mm/yr. The rate of land uplift
does not, however, affect the datings obtained from isolated basins, where specifically
the altitude of isolation is being dated. Therefore the new shore level datings in general
cannot be explicitly due to new results concerning land uplift. As to Kemiönsaari,
however, it can be noticed that the isobases of land uplift drawn by Kääriäinen (1963)
show a strange feature in the Perniö area, where the isobases approach Kemiönsaari
almost straight from the east – not in the SW-NE direction of the Salpausselkä end-
moraines of the Ice Age as indicated by, for example, Glückert (1976: Fig. 1, Fig. 2)
and in more general approaches by, for example, Kakkuri (1992). What the position of
Kemiönsaari actually would be using the isobases of Kääriäinen is not known as the
lines are not drawn until the island, but if the isobases really corresponded to those of
western Uusimaa rather than the land uplift rates of the area NE of Kemiönsaari, this
might explain why shore level dates in this specific case, especially the southern part of
the island, could be older than expected.

166
Olkiluoto-Pyhäjärvi area. One thing pointed out by the researchers is that most of
previous studies were based on too few radiocarbon datings. When, for example,
Glückert’s (1976) old study was based on thirteen radiocarbon datings, a total of
71 datings were made in connection with the new studies (Eronen et al. 2001).
Regardless of the evidently much better dating material, the results still are under
discussion. Archaeologists have started to pay attention to the fact that the new
geological datings correlate inadequately with archeological data. For example,
regarding the Stone Age in the Turku area, radiocarbon datings related to the Jäkärlä
Sub-Neolithic settlement site correlate better with the old shoreline-datings modified
by calibration, than with the new ones (Asplund 2006). Similar problems have been
encountered also elsewhere (Lehtonen 2005). Due to these yet unsolved problems,
detailed shorelevel datings have not been used in this book. The broad dates given
are in accordance with Glückert (1976) but at the same time the possibility of a more
rapid regression should also be acknowledged. Older shorelevel dates are actually
supported by the paleoecological study by Alenius (Appendix 2), where the isolation
phase of Söderbyträsket and Labbnästräsket is well indicated in the sediments and
an approximate dating can be obtained by extrapolation from available radiocarbon
dates. In both cases isolation would seem to have taken place much earlier than
indicated by the shore displacement curve presented above.62
One strange feature in the curves presented by Hatakka & Glückert (2000: Fig. 6)
is the lack of fluctuations. This must be due to some idea of presenting only the main
regressive trend; otherwise the curves are not understandable.63 It is well known that
the general regressive change in sea level in the Baltic has been affected by eustatic
changes leading to periods of faster or slower regression and even transgressive
periods. There is evidence of both long-term and short-term fluctuations, but – the
shorter the phases of change, the less well are they known.64 Regarding the Early

62
This could be due to to several reasons, one being the fact that the isolation phase has
been determined only by means of loss-on-ignition – a more accurate method being that
of diatome analysis. The use of diatome analysis would be important due to the fact that
organic sediment may have already started to accumulate prior to the actual isolation,
i.e. the proper isolation may have happened somewhat later. Other facts preventing
exact comparisons are that the altitudes of the basins have not been exactly measured
and the isolation phase in the sediments are dated by means of extrapolation only.
Despite these problems – due to the fact that the samples have been analysed not with
the aid of studying shorelevel displacement but the palynological record – the samples
point in the direction that the new results concerning shorelevel displacement may be
relevant in the case of Kemiönsaari.
63
It can be noted that normal fluctuations occur in the original Karjaa-Tammisaari-Perniö
and the Olkiluoto-Pyhäjärvi diagrams (cf. Hatakka & Glückert 2000: Fig. 4-5; Eronen et
al. 2001: Fig. 7).
64
In Finland short-term fluctuations have been dealt with mainly in the case of medieval
towns and castles (Hiekkanen 1981; 1983; 1988; Wahlberg 1994; Uotila 1998).

167
Iron Age no striking irregularity of sea level displacement has been discussed in
Finland – nor concerning the Bronze Age. A possible Early Bronze Age transgression
has, however, been noted in eastern Sweden (cf. Wigren 1987: 67-68). A hint of an
analogous development can perhaps be seen in the diagram representing the shore
displacement of the Kemiönsaari area (Fig. 77) where there is a plateau picturing a
slower regression during the Bronze Age. Whether this period could have included
some short-term transgression is not known. In the Late Bronze Age or around
the beginning of the Iron Age at the latest the rate of sea level displacement seems
to have changed again, towards a somewhat faster regression.65 The effect of this
(long-term) change has been that new land has emerged faster than during the
previous stage.
How shore-level changes affect coastal environments depends above all on
topography. In specific environments some periods have provided new land rapidly,
while others have experienced slow growth. Such fluctuations may to some extent
have been a factor affecting the availability of various resources and the course of
settlement development. In the project Changing Environment - Changing Society,
briefly discussed in the second chapter of this book, special attention was given to
the environmental changes caused by land upheaval. One simple but significant
feature pointed out by the researchers was that new land resources exposed
during the same period of time can differ considerably in different topographic
environments; in the vicinity of one settlement area no changes might occur, but at
the same time another settlement area might gain several hectares of new land and
perhaps lose its immediate contact with the sea (Harju 1995: 69). Similar ideas have
been presented in Stone Age research, as shore displacement on different slopes
may have affected settlement continuity or dislocation in different ways (Åkerlund
1996: 12, 114-119; Nuñez & Okkonen 1999: 109-114; 2005: 36-37). Regardless of the
aims of the Changing Environment - Changing Society project it seems that few
topographical considerations of shoreline effects in relation to prehistoric sites
actually were published. One exception is a study by Nissinaho (2002: 102-106; 2007:
200-201) where differences in the accretion of land as well as changes of ecotypes
within villages during the Iron Age and the Middle Ages have been compared.
More generally, the formulation of a model or research strategy for shoreline
development could, in its simplest form, start with only a couple of variables. The
main factors of shore displacement effects are changes related to 1) the area of land
exposed above the sea and 2) the length of the shoreline. In order to exemplify
the connection between increasing land area and shoreline length, two extremely

65
The change would have happened already during the Early Bronze Age if applying the
chronology of Hatakka & Glükert (2000) and Eronen et al. (2001).

168
simple simulations related to regressive shoreline displacement can be used. By
calculating the areal growth of a piece of land in a uniform water environment and
comparing it to changes in the length of the shoreline, it is possible to show that
in such a milieu shoreline length will increase with an increase in land area (Fig.
78). Calculation of the drain of a water area (theoretically in sea contact) within an
uniform terrestrial environment shows that shoreline length diminishes as the land
area grows larger (Fig. 79). The first case can be compared to the land upheaval of
an island, the second to the decrease of
1200 4000 a bay due to land upheaval.
Another simulation of land
1000
3000
upheaval, starting with an uniform
800 water environment, could be used
to demonstrate how pieces of land,
600 2000
randomly situated in a coordinate
400 system, will increase in area and add
1000
to the total land area until no water is
200
left. For some time the length of the
0 0
total shoreline will also increase, but as
the land area increases sufficiently, the
Fig. 78. Simulation of a round piece of
land increasing in size due to a regressive shoreline length will inevitably start to
shoreline displacement. As the amount of decrease. This is how the island world of
land (broken line, left axis) increases the the archipelago is slowly transformed
length of the shoreline (unbroken line,
into mainland. This process also
right axis) increases.
involves changes in topography,
1200 4000 ecosystems and other environmental
circumstances affecting the location of
1000
3000 settlements. These basic simulations
800 address the amount of exposed land
600 2000
and the length of the shoreline as two
simple factors to be used in inter-site
400
comparisons. In particular the length
1000
200 of the shoreline in site catchment areas
could be regarded as indicative of the
0 0
importance of marine and coastal
Fig. 79. Simulation of a round water resources. In addition to quantitative
basin in sea contact diminishing in size comparisons of actual land areas and
due to regressive shoreline displacement.
shoreline lengths, one could also look
As the amount of land (broken line, left
axis) increases the length of the shoreline at whether sites were settled during
(unbroken line, right axis) decreases. a period of increasing or decreasing

169
shoreline length, i.e. on the one hand an island or archipelago phase or on the
other a period of larger areas of land reducing former open sea areas, passages
and bays. In addition to actually counting areas and perimeters of pieces of land,
much of this knowledge can, of course, be gained visually from simply looking at
a topographical chart.
The consideration of shore displacement effects is much dependent on the
scale of evaluation. If, for example, the pioneer settlement phase of Kemiönsaari
was viewed within an area of a few kilometres around the settlement sites, it is
evident that they have been settled during a phase of both an ongoing increase in
the amount of land exposed above the sea and an increasing shoreline length. If,
on the other hand, reducing the area of comparison to only the immediate vicinity
of the sites, the settlement phase is closer to the shoreline maximum or even within
the stage of diminishing shoreline length. Visually, in the large scale we see tiny
islands in open sea, while in the small scale we see large areas of land around the
settlement and only the shoreline of its vicinity.
With the potential change in utilization of resources during the Early Metal
Period in mind, the development of shoreline length and area of land exposed
above water was counted within a radius of 500 m around the Late Neolithic and
Early Metal Period sites on Kemiönsaari.66 The diagrams picturing the progress of
shore displacement around the sites show both common traits and differences due
to local topography (Fig. 80). The area of land steadily increased, but at a different
pace depending on how high or low the relief of the surroundings. Sooner or later
shoreline length increased to a maximum, followed by a decrease when former
water areas dried up; in some cases former islands have grown together and new
islands later rose up, thus leading to changes back and forth in the perimeter of the
shoreline.
Further comparisons are possible when shoreline displacement datings as well
as datings for the archaeological sites are available. Following the coarse datings
outlined above, some considerations can be presented regarding shore displacement
effects during the periods within which the use of the settlement sites took place.67

66
Settlements situated close to each other within the same surrounding were measured
only once. Sites left out due to this were the Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age site
Hammarsboda 3 (situated about two hundred metres from Hammarsboda 2) and the
other of the presumably Pre-Roman settlement sites in Makila (situated about one
hundred metres from the Makila Östergård site included in the analysis).
67
The altitudes related to the Kiukainen Culture / Early Bronze Age sites was taken to
be 23-17 metres (in the actual analysis the upper range was set to 22.5 or 20 metres
in accordance with the registered height of the sites), that of the Late Bronze Age
(represented only by the Hammarsboda 2 site settled already during the previous
period) 17-15 metres, and that of the Pre-Roman Iron Age (represented by the Makila
and Tappo sites) 15-10 metres above sea level.

170
a b

1 4 1 4

0,75 3 0,75 3

0,5 2 0,5 2

0,25 1 0,25 1

0 0 0 0
60

50

40

30

20

10

60

50

40

30

20

10
c d

1 4 1 4

0,75 3 0,75 3

0,5 2 0,5 2

0,25 1 0,25 1

0 0 0 0
60

50

40

30

20

10

60

50

40

30

20

10
e f

1 4 1 4

0,75 3 0,75 3

0,5 2 0,5 2

0,25 1 0,25 1

0 0 0 0
60

50

40

30

20

10

60

50

40

30

20

10

1 4

0,75 3

0,5 2

0,25 1

0 0
60

50

40

30

20

10

Fig. 80. The development of area of land exposed above water (broken line, km2,
left scale) and shoreline length (unbroken line, km, right scale) within a radius
of 500 m around Late Neolithic and Early Metal Period sites (a: Dragsfjärd,
Hammarsboda, b: Dragsfjärd, Jordbro, c: Dragsfjärd, Knipängsbacken, d: Kemiö,
Branten, e: Kemiö, Makila, f: Kemiö, Östermark, g: Västanfjärd, Tappo). Shading
indicates the altitude (lower axis) taken to represent the time of settlement.

171
The main impression is, that just about all of the cases are rather similar, the time
of settlement being related to the period of decreasing shoreline length and a land
area of about 0.5 km2 being exposed above the sea within the 500 m radius. This is
true also concerning the Kemiö Makila site (Fig. 80:e), suggested as dating to the
Pre-Roman Iron Age, while the other Early Iron Age site, Tappo in Västanfjärd, is
somewhat different. At Tappo the period of settlement seems to occur when the
area was already in its final stage of shoreline development (Fig. 80:g). This could
be indicative of different environmental requirements of this settlement when
compared to those of the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. As far as the more
or less contemporary Makila settlement is concerned, such a conclusion is not as
obvious, but still possible; the period within which the site supposedly was settled
is characterized by a fast shoreline development in the vicinity of the site, due to the
shrinking and disappearance of a shallow bay still present when the sea reached
15 metres above present sea level. Some centuries later the area of the former bay
was all land.68
The results of the variables measured can also be exemplified by comparing the
actual shoreline perimeters and land areas at the altitudes taken to represent the
time of settlement. The shoreline length counted within a radius of 500 m around
the sites is between 1 and 3 kilometres, with the exception of that of the Tappo
site where it is much less (Fig. 81). The Hammarsboda site in Dragsfjärd (which
is the only Bronze Age site with evidenced site continuity into the Late Bronze
Age) shows a comparably long shoreline; this is due to the fact that the site is
situated on an isthmus, with areas of water on both sides of the settlement. The
general impression is that the average shoreline length within a 500 m radius of a
Late Neolithic or Bronze Age site could have been around 2 km. The area of land
within the same radius would have been about 0.5 km2 or slightly less (Fig. 82). In
comparison, the Tappo site would during its period of use have had a land area
of nearly 0.75 km2 around it (equivalent to about 100 % of the total area within a
500 m radius). In both diagrams the Makila site shows the second most terrestrial
(average) values, but due to the topography preventing exact interpretations, the
location factors could in principle correspond to those of the Late Neolithic and
Bronze Age sites.

68
If using the shore displacement chronology of Hatakka & Glückert (2000) and Eronen et
al. (2001) all of the outlined changes would have happened earlier, i.e. the Late Neolithic
and Bronze Age sites would have had a somewhat more terrestrial environment, as
would the Pre-Roman sites.

172
 4

0
Knipängsbacken

Kemiö, Branten

Västanfjärd,
Dragsfjärd,
Hammarsboda

Kemiö, Makila

Östermark
Jordbro

Kemiö,
Dragsfjärd,

Dragsfjärd,

Tappo
Fig. 81. Shoreline length (km) at the altitude taken to represent the
time of settlement counted within a radius of 500 m around Late
Neolithic and Early Metal Period sites.

0,75

0,5

0,25

0
Knipängsbacken

Kemiö, Branten

Västanfjärd,
Dragsfjärd,
Hammarsboda

Kemiö, Makila

Östermark
Jordbro

Kemiö,
Dragsfjärd,

Dragsfjärd,

Tappo

Fig. 82. Area (km2) of land exposed above water at the altitude taken
to represent the time of settlement counted within a radius of 500 m
around Late Neolithic and Early Metal Period sites.

173
4.2. Agrogeological considerations

The river valleys on the mainland have been essential environments for settlement
in southwestern Finland during the Iron Age and the Historical Period. For example
Oja (1955: 49) has pointed out that the oldest historical villages in the study area were
all situated in the lower parts of large rivers: Piikkiönjoki, Paimionjoki, Sauvonjoki,
Halikonjoki, Uskelanjoki and Perniönjoki. The villages were situated close to the
coast, not extending more than 20-25 km inland (Orrman 1996: 29). Apart from
the general need for easy access to coastal resources and overseas trade, also the
heavier Yoldia and Ancylus type clays may have kept settlement from spreading
further inland; Iron Age farming seems to have been feasible mainly in areas of
lighter, more easily tilled Litorina clay on lower elevations (Orrman 1991: 15-16; cf.
Orrman 1990b: 36-38; Salo 1995a: 23).
According to a study of the Vähäjoki area close to Turku, Early and Middle Iron
Age settlement seem to have favoured areas containing fine sand or sandy clay,
while Late Iron Age settlements occur rather in areas characterized by heavy, more
fertile clayey terrain (Saloranta 2000: 29-32, 38).69 The importance of suitable clayey
soils, silt and other fine soil areas for Late Iron Age settlement has been emphasised
in other research areas as well (e.g. Taavitsainen 1990: 65-68, 70, 113; Taavitsainen et
al. 1998: 218-221). For example GIS analyses by Kirkinen (1995; 1996: 37-42; 2004: 68-
70) has shown that one important factor for Late Iron Age permanent settlement in
the Taipalsaari area in eastern Finland was the presence of fine-grained and fertile
soils and proximity to bodies of water. Sites in these types of surroundings are, to
some extent, over-represented due to the influence of modern land-use, but even if
this is taken into consideration the results are valid (Kirkinen 1999).
In the Halikko-Salo area Esa Mikkola (1996) has done a settlement archaeological
analysis on the relationship between environmental factors and Iron Age sites. The
information on soil types was based on modern soil maps, manually digitised and
analysed by means of GIS. Also in this study the relationship between Iron Age
sites and specific soil-types as well as closeness to water were emphasized. One
result was that the amount of moraine in the vicinity of settlement sites decreases
from the Early Iron Age to the Late Iron Age while the amount of clay increases
(Mikkola 1996: 93-94). Furthermore, the Early Iron Age sites – both settlement sites
and cemeteries – were located near the sea, the mean distance being about 350
and 200 metres only; as far as the Late Iron Age is concerned, there was not such
a tendency, the corresponding figures being 2500 and 1350 metres (Mikkola 1996:

69
The location of Early Iron Age cemeteries close to areas of light clay has been emphasized
also in the case of the Aurajoki river valley within the same area, but the correlation is
not as obvious as in the Vähäjoki case (Lehtonen 2000: 59).

174
98-99). The impact of water streams, on the other hand, seems to have been of
importance especially during the Late Iron Age. These changes have been interpreted
as picturing the development of agricultural techniques. Although the material
analysed by Mikkola is not big, the main trends could probably be exemplified
also within the whole of the present study area where Iron Age settlement sites
and cemeteries occur. A further problem is, however, how to approach the subject
of farming potential and settlement development on Kemiönsaari, where Iron Age
sites are sparse.
Present-day Kemiönsaari is characterised by an agrarian landscape, in part
much resembling nearby mainland areas (Fig. 83). About one fifth (20.5 %) of the

Fig. 83. Present-day fields within the central parts of the study area. Crosses mark the main
parish churches, equivalent to the Historical Period centres in the area.

175
total area of the island is cultivated (Tikkanen & Westerholm 1992: 48). Cultivated
areas embrace small rivers and streams that flow into the sea. The cultivated areas
are mainly situated in valleys, whose main direction is west-east or east-west; some
streams and valleys also run southward. Most of the cultivated areas are claylands.
The municipality of Kemiö is officially assigned to the second highest class of
agricultural suitability; Västanfjärd belongs to the third class and Dragsfjärd to the
fifth (Tikkanen & Westerholm 1992: 48). This means that conditions in part of the
area are favourable for present-day cultivation, especially in the northern half of
the island, and quite reasonable in the southeastern part as well.
One way of approaching the question of potentials for early agriculture on
Kemiönsaari is provided by agrogeological maps made on the basis of comprehensive
surveys in the 1930’s. These old maps cover parts of the study area from which
modern soil maps are not available. They are suitable for analysis also due to a
more detailed determination of different types of clay in comparison with ordinary
soil maps. Furthermore, the maps, a series of four covering the main part of the
study area (Aarnio 1935-1938), are in the scale 1:50 000 and thus fairly detailed.70
They can be quite well combined with present day topographical charts from the
area.71 Among the different soil types presented on the maps the most interesting
one is light sandy clay, the distribution of which could give one indication of areas
suitable for early agriculture. It is interesting to note that light sandy clay is quite
typical for the Kemiönsaari area, reaching according to Aarnio (1937: 37, Table 1)
59.9 % of all types of clay and 8.52 % of the total area of the agrogeological map
covering most of the island. In comparison with the nearby mainland, the extent of
light clay areas is considerably smaller than in the Halikko-Salo area, but seems to
be quite comparable to that of the Paimio-Piikkiö-Sauvo area and the Perniö area.
The result is similar if counted from a digitised version of the maps (Fig. 84). This
rough comparison of map sheet statistics does not take into account the small-scale
distribution of soils within microregions, nor the problem of how big a percentage
of the clay areas have been submerged. However, if light clay areas had been of
importance for early agriculture, the quite high percentage of such soils suggests
almost as good a general possibility for Iron Age agriculture on Kemiönsaari as on
the mainland.
When looking more closely at the distribution of archaeological sites in relation
to light clay areas it can be noted, first of all, that the majority of all Iron Age sites

70
In addition to these a separate map from the municipality of Paimio is available (Aarnio
1924).
71
The area covered by the four agrogeological maps, 60º – 60º30’ latitude and 2º30’ – 1º30’
longitude west of Helsinki (Aarnio 1935-1938), correspond approximately to the area
60º – 60º30’ latitude and 22º27’30” – 23º57’30” longitude. When registering the maps for
digitising a more detailed fitting was done manually.

176
 9.39 17.56
(7.6) (17.5)

8.52 8.8
(7.1) (8.1)

Fig. 84. Amounts of light clay (%) on four agrogeological soil map sheets
in the study area according to Aarnio (1935-1938) and as counted from a
digitised compilation of the same maps (within brackets).

occur close to light sandy clay. Whether this is due specifically to the significance of
this type of soil is, however, not certain. There might be a very general correlation,
as the whole pattern of distribution of sites, the distribution of light clay as well
as present day fields goes back to the time when the claylands were still open sea.
At that time settlement was often situated near the shores of bays, frequently in
sandy areas. Due to land upheaval the old bays later formed valleys, often with a
stream running through, and the earlier sea bottom formed claylands within these
valleys. The environment, which earlier had been favourable for a maritime hunter-
gatherer or mixed farming economy, slowly changed into an environment suitable
for permanent agriculture. It might be, that major reallocations of settlement in the
search for suitable claylands were often not needed at all, just smaller adjustments
within the same old settlement areas. At least this is the impression one gets from
comparisons of the long-term general distribution of settlement, where many
similarities can be seen from as early as the Stone Age to the present.
With reference to what has been argued regarding the economy of the Finnish
Battle Axe Culture it is interesting to note some settlement sites and stray finds on
comparably high elevations close to light clay areas. Several such sites have been
registered in Muurla and in the eastern parts of Salo and Perniö (Fig. 85). Some of
these, if not shore related, could indicate settlement in environments suitable for

177
farming. The Battle Axe Culture sites on Kemiönsaari, on the other hand, do not
seem to occur close to light clay areas – here the location of the sites is evidently
due to other factors. Also regarding Late Neolithic and Bronze Age sites it seems
that some of them occur close to light clay areas (part of which in reality was still
submerged at the time) while some do not – the importance of light clay areas thus
remain doubtful (Fig. 86).
The first period when one could more seriously consider settlement location
being dependent on the proximity of light sandy clay is the Pre-Roman Iron Age.








 




(
(



 (
(







(
(



 
 

(
(
(
( (
(

(
(

(
(



 (
(

 Cairn or cemetery




 Settlement site


  Uncertain settlement site

( Stray find
(



Fig. 85. The location of Battle Axe Culture sites compared with the distribution of light
sandy clay (digitized from the maps by Aarnio 1935-1938).

178
Most sites occur close to this type of soil, the relationship in a way underlined
by the sites on Kemiönsaari (Fig. 87). Still there could be other factors as well
related to the choice of location of the sites. As pointed out in Mikkola’s (1996)
study, these Early Iron Age sites are situated on sand or moraine, often near bays or
rivers in sea contact. This goes for sites both on Kemiönsaari and on the mainland.
Especially one could point out the area of Sauvo, which even in the Early Iron
Age was divided by a wide bay. Relying on the distribution of cemeteries, Iron
Age settlement occurred on the shores of this bay – the surroundings of which






(
(







(
(




(
(





(
(


(
(
(
(

(
(
(
(
(
(





 Settlement site



 Uncertain settlement site

( Stray find
(

Fig. 86. The location of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age sites, cairns excluded, compared
with the distribution of light sandy clay (digitized from the maps by Aarnio 1935-1938).

179
seem to have had minimal occurrences of light sandy clay when compared with
other central settlement areas – or even Kemiönsaari. Still this was one area where
several cemeteries were established during the Roman Period (Fig. 88). One could
think of least two possible reasons for this. One is simply that closeness to light clay
areas may not have been a major requirement for Early Iron Age settlement; the
other possible explanation could be that suitable clays actually occur to a greater
degree in the area, although not shown on the agrogeological map.
The latter explanation – questioning the validity of the soil survey made in the
1930’s – cannot be drawn upon as long as no other classification of clays is available









































 










  Cairn or cemetery


 Settlement site

 Uncertain settlement site

 Hill-site


Fig. 87. The location of Pre-Roman sites compared with the distribution of light sandy clay
(digitized from the maps by Aarnio 1935-1938).

180
from the area. Still it is important to point out that the classification of clay made
in the 1930’s was subjective, i.e. dependent on the interpretations made by each
surveyor. The grain-size and hygroscopicity of the different types of clay were
considered to be so close to each other that these variables could not be used for
categorization; instead the classification during fieldwork was done on the basis
of the structure of the clays, affected by the amount of organic matter, shrinkage
and swelling and other such facts (Aarnio 1937: 38). Heavy clay was described as
“plastic when moist … the cutting-surface very shining, not mealy” whereas light
clays as “loose fissile soils, the cutting surface of which is dull and mealy, when dry”






























(
( 

 



(
(



 Cairn or cemetery
Uncertain cairn or cemetery




 Settlement site

( Stray find
(

Fig. 88. The location of Roman Period sites compared with the distribution of light sandy
clay (digitized from the maps by Aarnio 1935-1938).

181
 









 








(
(
















































 ( (
( (
(
(
(




 






















(
(







 Cairn or cemetery




Uncertain cairn or cemetery
 Settlement site

 Hill-site

( Stray find
(

Fig. 89. The location of Migration Period and Merovingian Period sites compared with the
distribution of light sandy clay (digitised from the maps by Aarnio 1935-1938).

(Aarnio 1935: 35). The fact that the classifications of clay are subjective can be seen
where the borders of the soil map sheets meet – clay areas cut by the map sheets
in some cases have differing classifications on different maps as to whether they
represent heavy or light clay. The problem can unfortunately not be investigated
further in this connection.72 It seems peculiar that the environment of Sauvo,
supposedly similar to other former sea bottom areas of the Litorina period in the
vicinity, has produced so much less light clay than others, but if the agrogeological

72
Inconsistency in the marking of different types of soils on soil maps has also been
observed by Taavitsainen (1990: 65) in an archaeological context. In that case, the
problem was primarily related to the use of maps of different scales.

182
 (




(
(
(







 


(
(





 








 (
( (
((
( (
( (
(











(
(
(



(
(
 
 (
( 
 ((




 (
(



(
(((
(



(
(

 ( (( (
(

 




(
( (
( 



(
((
( (



(
( (
(



(
(




 (








(
(
(
(
(
(







(
(
(

 ( (
(
(
(
((




(
( (
(













(
( 


(
(
(
(






(
(
(
(



(
(





 Cairn or cemetery
Uncertain cairn or cemetery
 Settlement site
 Uncertain settlement site
 Hill-site
( Stray find

Fig. 90. The location of Viking Age and Crusade Period sites compared with the distribution
of light sandy clay (digitized from the maps by Aarnio 1935-1938).

maps are used for comparison, this has to be accepted. In this case Sauvo must be
seen as an area where the greater importance of other factors than light clay for the
location of Pre-Roman or Roman Period settlement is exemplified.
With regard to the occurrence of archaeologically dated sites, the Migration
Period and the Merovingian Period seem to have been times of decline of the
Sauvo area. Just one cemetery from the Merovingian Period has been registered
and none from the Migration Period. One could speculate that one reason for this
development (if not due to the current state of research) could have been the lack of
good soils for agriculture, while the more frequent occurrence of easily tilled soils
in other areas may have been one reason for the prosperity reflected in the grave

183
rituals in these areas. Most of the sites dating to these periods are in fact situated
close to light clay areas – even the single cemetery in Sauvo (Fig. 89). On the other
hand, the development is more complicated. As pointed out above earlier, a decline
in the number of cemeteries during either the Migration Period or the Merovingian
Period can be seen in other areas as well, regardless of the occurrence of light clay.
The distribution of Viking Age and Crusade Period sites does not add much
to the discussion. This is the period when, according to Mikkola (1996), clay areas
would have been of importance for settlement location within the study area. As
could be expected, most sites are in the vicinity of light sandy clay areas (Fig. 90).
A few exceptions occur regarding cemeteries – for example in Sauvo – and some
more regarding stray find sites. With respect to the settlement development of
Kemiönsaari, it is interesting to note that the only assured archaeological Viking
Age datings from the main part of the island occur close to the same light clay
area in Makila, where the Pre-Roman settlement was located one thousand years
earlier.
One dilemma of the comparisons above has been the problem of examining the
distribution of sites and light clay areas in relation to elevation and thus the shoreline
during different periods. This brings the discussion back to the considerations of
shore displacement. The question of whether the location of sites has been more
dependent on closeness to the shore than closeness to light clay areas is difficult
to deal with, as no detailed elevation model outside Kemiösaari has been used
for comparison with the agrogeological data. A different way of approaching the
question is to simply examine the height above the sea of settlement sites from
different periods. Such a comparison is problematic due to the fact that most sites
have just a general dating and, secondly, due to the fact that vertical elevation
does not necessary tell much about how far from the shore the site was situated
horizontally. A few tendencies can, however, be pointed out, when examining
settlement sites according to periods from the Neolithic to the Iron Age in relation
to a shore displacement curve (Fig. 91). The sites have been plotted against the
curve according to their lowest registered elevation.73
As can be seen in the diagram, the elevations of the settlement sites do not follow
the shore displacement curve very closely. Only Comb Ceramic settlement sites quite

73
The two highest outliers, referring to the same site, Kaukola in Pertteli (equivalent to
Kynttelkoski in Salo), situated 70-75 m above sea level, are not shown in the diagram.
The Kaukola site, registered as a settlement with a dating both to the Late Neolithic
or the Early Bronze Age as well as the Pre-Roman Iron Age is problematic due to the
sparse find material. At the site both a flint sickle (KM 10014) and Morby Ware pottery
has been found (Meinander 1969: 44). The flint sickle could be regarded as a stray find,
but the occurrence of quartz flakes at the site could in fact indicate that the site had been
in use prior to the Pre-Roman Period.

184
 50

40

30

20

10

CC BAT LN / EBA LBA P IA

0
7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000

Fig. 91. Comb Ceramic, Battle Axe Culture, Late Neolithic or Early Bronze
Age, Late Bronze Age, Pre Roman and Iron Age AD settlement sites grouped
according to period and lowest elevation compared with shore displacement
(modified from Glückert 1976). The Kaukola site in Pertteli, 70 m above sea
level, is not shown in the diagram.

expectedly show a consistent group of sites close to the shore displacement curve.
Such a tendency seems also to dominate among the Late Neolithic / Early Bronze
Age sites. Within all of the other periods there are single sites close to the curve,
but also sites several metres or more above the sea level of the respective periods.74
Several sites located high in relation to the shoreline already occur within the Battle
Axe Culture, but even more evident the tendency of sites losing their immediate
sea contact is indicated in the case of the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron
Age, the only low lying site shown in the diagram being the Kemiö Makila site. The
same can be said for the rest of the Iron Age, where a few settlement sites are low
lying, but the majority still occurs on higher levels. This must mean that during the
period of the Battle Axe Culture and from the Late Bronze Age onwards, light clay
areas in the vicinity of many of the settlement sites had already arisen from the sea
and could in principle have been one factor according to which the location of the
sites has been determined.

74
In addition to giving some information on the location of settlements in relation to the
shore, the diagram could, in principle, also be regarded as support for the old shore
displacement chronology by Glückert (1976), as all sites (even the Comb Ceramic sites
at approximately 25 metres above sea level) are within the altitude ranges indicated by
the shore displacement curve.

185
 With regard to the question of Site km2 % km2 %
the possibility of early farming on Kemiö, Branten 0,02 2 0,04 1
Kemiönsaari, it is interesting that Kemiö, Makila 0,45 58 0,64 20
the Pre-Roman settlement sites Kemiö, Östermark 0,05 6 0,65 21
Västanfjärd, Tappo 0,23 30 0,95 30
of Makila in Kemiö and Tappo in
Västanfjärd are located close to Fig. 92. Amounts of light clay around the Late
easily cultivated light clay areas, Neolithic or Early Bronze Age settlement sites
whereas two Late Neolithic or Branten and Östermark and the Pre-Roman
settlement sites Makila and Tappo within the radii
Early Bronze Age sites available
of 500 m (left) and 1 km.
for comparison are not. This can
be exemplified in a more detailed manner by examining the occurrence of light clay
within the radii of 500 m and 1 km around the sites (Fig. 92). In the vicinity of the
Branten site in Kemiö, representing the Kiukainen Culture, only a few percentages
of light clay occur. Furthermore, all of the light clay within the 500 m distance was
actually under water during the use of the site. At the contemporary site Östermark
in Kemiö there is a bigger percentage of light sandy clay, but there as well, part of
the light clay amount within the 1 km radius is situated lower than 20 m above sea
level, and was most probably under water at the time of use of the site.
In the vicinity of the Pre-Roman sites the light clay areas are bigger. Within
a 500 meter radius the percentage is extremely high at the Makila site, which is
in fact situated on the boundary of a large light clay area. Even at Makila it is,
however, possible that not all of the light clay area was land during the period of
occupation. In the vicinity of the Tappo site soils are more variegated, but here
too the amount of light clay is quite considerable. When the radius is doubled the
percentage of light clay drops substantially in the Makila case; this is due to the fact
that most of the light clay is actually situated so close to the settlement site that an
extension of the area does not add much to the amount of arable land. In the Tappo
case the percentage of light clay stays the same as we move further away from the
settlement site. These observations regarding the Kemiönsaari sites fit within what
has been discussed above, i.e. they may indicate that one criterion by which already
Early Iron Age settlement locations were chosen could have been the presence of
light sandy claylands suitable for cultivation. This does not exclude other criteria,
like the ones pointed out by Mikkola (1996), which may in many cases have been
as important, or even more important for the choice of settlement location. To these
one could furthermore add requirements of a non-physical nature, not related to
archaeometrically measurable variables but social behaviour. This, however, is a
different discussion, to be continued in the latter chapters of this book.

186
4.3. Palynology

4.3.1. The archipelago

During the course of this study the possibility of using recent data on vegetation,
concerning species possibly related to ancient settlement or land-use, was
considered, but the idea was rejected after realizing that no suitable information was
available.75 Thus the most important botanical data – actually the most important
environmental data overall, picturing both natural conditions and human impact
– is the information obtained by means of pollen analysis. A total of five sites
have been sampled, two of which by Irmeli Vuorela earlier (Asplund & Vuorela
1989), and three, presented in Appendix 2 by Teija Alenius, specifically for this
study. As stated in the introduction, the areal coverage is good enough to make
some generalizations. Regardless of the fact that the results mostly reflect impact
close to the sample sites, the five sites sampled on Kemiönsaari must be seriously
regarded as a kind of general synthesis of the intensity of land-use in the area. This
is especially true concerning agriculture, visible (in addition to changes in relative
pollen frequencies) through the occurrence of cereal pollen. Cereal pollen influx
give important indications of human presence and it has even been suggested as
an appropriate indicator of population size (Simola et al. 1991; Taavitsainen et al.
1998: 228-234). Within the study area such a straightforward interpretation is not
applicable as one reason for the poor amount of settlement indicating pollen during
the earlier periods is probably the low pollen production of barley in comparison
with wind pollinated rye dominating in the Late Iron Age and the Historical
Period (Donner 1984: 14; Vuorela 2002: 83). This means that one must consider

75
One source for comparison between different areas could, in principle, be the distribution
of potential archaeophytes indicating early human activities. The possibility of using
recent vegetation data was tested concerning one common species, Filipendula vulgaris,
and one more rare species, Verbascum nigrum. The idea was to use data from a database
administered by The Botanical Museum at the Finnish Museum of Natural History.
The material unfortunately proved to be insufficient; it is too dependent on how the
information has been gathered regarding different areas. In the database Filipendula
vulgaris is represented by 366 occurrences (10 on Kemiönsaari, 128 within the rest of
the archipelago, and 228 on the mainland). On the mainland most of the registered
locales (185) are in the area of Paimio, Piikkiö and Sauvo – most probably due to the
special interest in archaeophytes by two local botanists active in the area (Silkkilä &
Koskinen 1990; cf. Luoto 1989: 64-69). The exceptionally high number of 118 occurrences
of Filipendula vulgaris in Nauvo, on the other hand, is due to a detailed study made in
the area by Eklund (1958). The occurrences of Verbascum nigrum are fewer, altogether
80, the number of 65 of which occur in the Paimio – Piikkiö – Sauvo area, evidently
due to the same reason as regarding Filipendula vulgaris. Three occurrences have been
registered in Parainen, one in Dragsfjärd and one in Kemiö.

187
the sum of the Cerealia pollen occurrences in the pollen diagrams of the study
area as dependent on both the species chosen for cultivation as well as the amount
of people practising agriculture and/or the intensity of agriculture practised – the
latter obviously related to how big a fraction of the total subsistence agriculture has
been. The results from Kemiönsaari can be compared with pollen data from other
sites within the comparative study area (Fig. 93). To some extent this comparison
is biased by the fact that Kemiönsaari has now been sampled more systematically
and with better coverage than most regions within the area of comparison.

55 
 66

 88




 

 







 

22 
22




 

44
33 44 77 




99

10
10 






11 12
12


 11
11




 

 




 





14
14 13
13



 


 16




 16 15
15






 Hill-site
0 20 km





 Uncertain hill-site

Fig. 93. Pollen sample sites within the study area (1: Lalaxkärret, 2:
Kuoppajärvi, 3: Vohteenkellarinsuo, 4: Palomäki, 5: Oinilanmäki, 6:
Preitilänsuo, 7: Kankareenjärvi, 8: Santamäensuo, 9: Ketohaka, 10:
Pukkila, 11: Lemunsuo, 12: Ilsokärret, 13: Mossdalen, 14: Gärdorna,
15: Labböleträsket, 16: Söderbyträsket).

All of the sampled sites from Kemiönsaari show the general pattern of a long
period of sporadic occurrence of Cerealia followed by continuous indications
of cultivation (the rational Cerealia limit) in the Late Iron Age or the Historical
Period (Fig. 94). At Söderbyträsket in Dragsfjärd the first occurrence of Cerealia – in
this case rye (Secale), which is unusual – has been dated to the Early Bronze Age.
Somewhat further up in the sample there is an occurrence of both rye and barley
in connection with a period of decrease in spruce as a convincing indication of
clearance and cultivation in the area. Other sporadic occurrences of Cerealia as well

188
 Dragsfjärd,
Söderbyträsket

Kemiö, Ilsokärret

Kemiö, Makila ?

Gärdorna

Kemiö, Mossdalen

Västanfjärd,
Labböleträsket

3000 2000 1000 0 1000 2000

Fig. 94. Human impact reflected in the occurrence of Cerealia at pollen sample sites on
Kemiönsaari. Black marks indicate radiocarbon dated occurrences and white marks
occurrences dated according to depth in relation to radiocarbon dated horizons. Marks with
a question mark refer to occurrences interpreted without absolute chronology.

as other pollen types indicative of human influence are found throughout the Iron
Age, culminating in a continuous curve of Cerealia starting from the late Viking
Age or the Crusade period.
From the municipality of Kemiö three sites have been sampled and analysed.
The oldest rational Cerealia limit has been recorded at Ilsokärret in the northern
part of Kemiönsaari. Before continuous cultivation started during the Viking Age
some older indications of farming occur, one early horizon (without the occurrence
of Cerealia) dated to the Late Bronze Age or the early Pre-Roman Iron Age (Asplund
& Vuorela 1989: 76-77; Vuorela 1990: 119-120). This stage is followed by several
occurrences of Cerealia, roughly datable by interpolating to the Early Iron Age,
including the Roman Period. There is also one Late Iron Age occurrence preceding
the continuous cultivation of the Viking Age. As a whole, human impact – both
grazing and agricultural – is visible throughout the profile.
At the Makila Gärdorna site the situation is somewhat different as the early
human impact is restricted to a single grain of Hordeum, found at a depth probably
corresponding in date to the Pre-Roman settlement site in Makila. The sparse
indication of agriculture is surprising as the settlement site is located relatively
close, only about 1.5 kilometres away. This could be partly due to the fact that there
is a mountainous ridge between the immediate surroundings of the settlement and
the sample site, possibly affecting the spread of pollen. Another explanation could
be that the intensity of Pre-Roman agriculture was still rather low. From the Middle

189
Iron Age onward, according to linear interpolation, there are indications of man-
made forest fires and somewhat later indications of grazing. Cultivation can be
seen in the form of one Cerealia grain occurring at a level radiocarbon dated to
the Viking Age. This occurrence of Cerealia has been interpreted as representing
sporadic cultivation too. A dating to the end of the Iron Age corresponds well to the
dating of the Makila Majberget cairns nearby.76 The rational Cerealia limit, on the
other hand, has been radiocarbon dated to the 14th century, which might represent
the foundation of the Makila village. A further intensification of agriculture took
place sometime during the post-medieval period.
At the third site in Kemiö – Mossdalen – early agriculture is again visible, this
time in the form of forest clearance probably related to cultivation occurring during
the Early Bronze Age; more reliable evidence in the form of one occurrence of cereal
pollen occurs during the Late Bronze Age or in the early Pre-Roman Iron Age (cf.
Asplund & Vuorela 1989). Both of these horizons have been radiocarbon dated, but
the marginal of error is too wide to allow more exact dates. In addition to these
there is one more radiocarbon dated occurrence of Cerealia, datable to the late Pre-
Roman Iron Age or the Roman Period. Also in the Mossdalen sample, the rational
Cerealia limit is rather late, estimated according to depth within the sample to the
Middle Ages. There is, however, a singe cereal pollen grain at a depth, which might
date to the end of the Iron Age, i.e. comparable to the Viking Age indications of
cultivation recorded at the other sample sites.
Due to a problem with the sampling of the mire Labböleträsket in Västanfjärd
the upper part of this site (down to 170 cm) was sampled and analysed twice.77
In the second (more reliable) analysis probable fire clearance is indicated by the
increase of charcoal particles in several horizons starting at the depth of 138 cm.
This development culminates at the depth of 100-90 cm, where also the first barley
pollen appears at 100 cm below the surface. This is comparable to the results from
the first analysis when barley was found at the depth of 96 cm, radiocarbon dated
to 2200-2020 or 2000-1980 cal BC, i.e. the Late Neolithic. There is even older possible
human impact observable, reflected in the marked decrease of pine at the depth of
296-270 cm, and, in particular, the increase of nettle pollen at the depth of 195 cm.
The radiocarbon date for the latter horizon corresponds to the period of the Late

76
The result is also supported by an earlier preliminary study of the Makila Gärdorna
site carried out by Lasse Korkalainen, a student at the Department of Geology at the
University of Turku. In this first rough examination a couple of Cerealia pollen grains
occurred in samples from depths of 100-102 and 120-122 cm below the surface (Asplund
2001a: Fig. 103). The 120-122 cm layer was radiocarbon dated to 920 ± 50 BP (GrA-15312),
giving the calibrated result 1020-1220 cal AD.
77
The sample site location was measured using GPS during the coring of both samples, i.e.
both parts of the sample profile are from close to the same spot.

190
Comb Ware (Ka III). After the first occurrence of Cerealia there is one pollen grain
of rye (Secale) at the depth of 84 cm, related to an increase in charcoal particles.
Judging from the depth, this period dates to the Early Bronze Age. The changes are,
however, of a relatively short-term nature; after this period indication of human
impact diminishes. From the pollen data it is impossible to conclude whether there
has been settlement in the area of Labböleträsket between the Early Bronze Age
and the final period of continuous cultivation distinguishable in the upper part of
the sample. At least the human impact on the landscape seems to have declined, as
can be seen in the new increase of tree pollen and decrease of herb pollen. Finally,
the signs of continuous cultivation start at the dept of 56 cm, radiocarbon dated to
the late Merovingian Period or the Viking Age.
With regard to the problematic period concerning the settlement history of
the Kemiönsaari area, the Iron Age AD, the pollen data does quite confidently
show cultivation during the Late Iron Age. In three of the samples continuous
cultivation can be seen already during the Viking Age and also the two other
sites show sporadic cultivation during that period. It is more difficult to see any
clear pattern for the period preceding the Viking Age; sporadic cultivation occurs
during different periods at different sites, starting with the Late Neolithic. There
is no indication of any consolidate period of cultivation prior to the Iron Age AD
and it is thus not possible to see indications of any general decline of land-use
after the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Partly this could be due to the fact that the nature
of the interpretations of human presence made from pollen data are in most cases
positive only – presence can be established, non-presence not. This is equal to the
archaeological data, which is difficult to use for negative explanations, in this case
the interpretation of non-presence or recession. What has become clear in the light
of the palynological evidence is, however, that the pollen results support the idea
of more or less continuous settlement or utilisation. Small-scale human activity
visible in the form of pollen and charcoal particles indicating fire clearance or
slash-and-burn cultivation as well as grazing has been detected in various parts
of Kemiönsaari. The interpretation by Teija Alenius (Appendix 2) based on the
palynological analysis suggests occasional slash-and-burn cultivation with lengthy
interruptions in addition to grazing as the explanation for the pollen pattern. In her
opinion, it is reasonable to assume that the weak signs of Iron Age cultivation and
settlement indicate a low population size compared to that of the Viking Age when
indications of cultivation increase. To some extent the increasing or continuous
Late Iron Age Cerealia curves of the diagrams could be related to rye becoming
more frequently cultivated, the same cultivated area thus producing more pollen
than when cultivating mainly barley. In the light of the archaeological evidence,
the Late Iron Age indicia of intensified cultivation can, however, be regarded as

191
further evidence of a period of settlement expansion and an increased presence
in the archipelago. According to Alenius (Appendix 2) the palynological evidence
from the Viking Age onwards is indicative of permanent and agriculturally based
settlement.
Within the rest of the archipelago few palynological studies have been
undertaken. In the Lalaxkärret site in Nauvo, where the absolute Cerealia limit
is dated to about the same age as the Late Neolithic date from Labböleträsket (cf.
Vuorela 1990; 1998: 176) it has unfortunately not been possible to study the Iron
Age. Within this sample the uppermost 2000 years are missing due to the utilisation
of peat (Vuorela 1990: 123, 126), which means that no interpretations regarding the
Iron Age AD can be made. The most important Iron Age pollen results from the
archipelago thus come from the Mossen site in Korppoo (just outside the study
area). At this site Iron Age pollen data has been interpreted as reflecting two more
active periods of cultivation (Vuorela 1990: 128). The first one has been radiocarbon
dated to 1990 ± 90 (Hel-2702), i.e. 250 cal BC – 250 cal AD, and the end of the other
has the dating 1350 ± 90 (Hel-2701), i.e. 530 – 900 cal AD. Continuous cultivation is
reflected in the diagram starting from around 1400 AD (Vuorela 1990: 128-130). The
Iron Age cultivation, although interpreted as not continuous (Vuorela 1990: 128), is
still one of the best indications of a regular utilisation of the area during the middle
part of the Iron Age, which otherwise is the period most difficult to evidence in
both archaeological and palynological materials from the archipelago. It might
be a coincidence, but Korppoo is the only island where a cup-marked stone has
been confidently registered (Tuovinen 1990a: 70-71). Otherwise cup-marked stones
occur only in the mainland municipalities, close to cemeteries and are probably
also related to agriculture.78
New convincing palynological evidence of Iron Age cultivation has also been
obtained from the island Ors in Inkoo, in the province Uusimaa, east of the present
study area. Although archaeological information on Iron Age settlement is missing
from this island covering about ten square kilometres, pollen analysis shows a
possible clearance period in the Early Roman Iron Age, followed by a new period
of clearance and a continuous curve of rye (Secale) from the 5th century AD, the
most intensive period of both agriculture and grazing, however, starting in the
late 7th century and lasting to the Historical Period (Alenius et al. 2004; Jansson
2005: 69-70). These results support to the idea of settlement and utilisation of the
archipelago during the Iron Age.

78
The distribution of cup-marked stones may have something to do also with the period
of making such stones. The lack of them on Kemiönsaari, where activities (including
permanent cultivation) increased during the Late Iron Age, may indicate the Late Iron
Age as a period when cup-marks were no longer of importance – at least not outside the
main settlement areas of the mainland.

192
4.3.2. A comparison with the mainland

The introduction of cultivation occurred just as early on the mainland as in the

archipelago. The oldest – Late Neolithic – dates have been obtained in Paimio
and Halikko (Vuorela 1999). In Salo, the earliest occurrences of Cerealia in pollen
sample sediments are from Ketohaka in Isokylä, dated to the Early Bronze Age
(Tolonen 1985b; Vuorela 1998: 176; 1999: 146-147; cf. Hirviluoto 1991: 72). In the last-
mentioned case, the earliest cultivated pollen grain has been identified as wheat
(Triticum), which is uncommon. With regard to the question of reflections of Iron
Age cultivation, some of the sampled sites on the mainland show similar patterns
of cereal pollen occurrences as those from Kemiönsaari, while some seem to differ
regarding earlier indications of permanent farming. The mainland material is,
unfortunately, not very good for establishing exact dates for the development of
cultivation; the samples are less well dated, partly due to the use of traditional
radiocarbon dating, with error margins over one hundred years resulting in
calibrated dates covering several centuries, which are difficult to interpret.
The only site from which it has been able to draw a continuous Cerealia curve for
the whole Iron Age AD is the Salo Ketohaka site, actually situated at the Ketohaka
settlement site itself (Tolonen 1985b). The results obtained here are probably most of
all due to the optimal location of the sampling site when compared with other sites,
the location of which mostly are dependent on a suitable basin, rather than closeness
to important archaeological sites. The other two sites in Salo are more difficult to
interpret. At Pukkila continuous cultivation has been dated to the middle of the
Iron Age (Tolonen 1983) and at Santamäensuo (Tolonen 1985b) to the Late Iron Age
at the latest. The date regarding the latter site is problematic due to wide dating
ranges; continuous cultivation might have started as early as the middle of the Iron
Age. At Lake Kankareenjärvi in Halikko the dating and the general interpretation
is even more doubtful as the site originally was published with the comment
that human influence during the last 2000 years had been relatively insignificant
(Tolonen 1985a: 474). Later (after being radiocarbon dated), the “commencement of
the cultivation period” was roughly dated to about 1500-2000 BP (Tolonen 1987b:
365). One problem is, that the radiocarbon dates obtained are much older than this,
in fact so much older that the dates have been rejected as “clearly too old” (Tolonen
1987b: 359).79 The whole interpretation of the Kankareenjärvi series thus remains
indecisive. Outside the Salo – Halikko area, there is only one site in the eastern

79
The period of intensification of cultivation corresponds to the date 3530 ± 140 (Hel-
1933) and the period of beginning of arable cultivation to the date 2870 ± 130 (Hel-
1932) (Tolonen 1987b: Table 1). A surface sediment sample which should have given a
“modern” age gave the result 460 ± 110 (Hel-2068; Jungner & Sonninen 1996: 9-10).

193
part of the study area, Lemunsuo in Perniö. At this site cultivation occurs during
the Roman Period or the Migration Period and has been interpreted as continuous
since the Viking Age (Vuorela 1985; Vuorela 1999: 149).80
Paimio is of special interest with regard to palynology, as no less than four
sites have been sampled within the municipality. At Palomäki, temporary slash-
and-burn cultivation has been dated to about 300-700 AD, intensive continuous
cultivation following after that (Tolonen 1985a: 476-477). However, in this case too
the datings are not at all as exact as the interpretation. The same is true about
the Preitilänsuo site where proper dates have been difficult to achieve due to a
slow sediment accumulation rate. Some Cerealia pollen appears to occur at a depth
possibly dating to the Early Bronze Age (cf. Tolonen 1987b: Fig. 8). The level of
continuous occurrence of Cerealia has been dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age
(Tolonen 1987b: 362 cf. Tolonen & Kukkonen 1989: 77). It is true that there is an
Early Iron Age radiocarbon date from close to the rational Cerealia limit, but a
level just 15 cm higher gave a dating to the Middle Ages. The onset of cultivation
occurred in connection with these dates, with an increase estimated to date to the
Late Iron Age or the Middle Ages (Tolonen 1985a: 474-476). The exact dating of
the phases related to cultivation, however, does not seem possible. The reliability
of the chronology is not enhanced by the fact that some of the radiocarbon dates
have also been rejected in this case. The uppermost dates have been regarded as
“clearly too young, perhaps due to contamination by deep roots of younger mire
plants” (Tolonen 1987b: 359). At Oinilanmäki (Tolonen 1987a; cf. Tolonen 1985a:
476-478) the dating ranges are also wide, but continuous cultivation seems to be
datable to the transition from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages. This is the case also
at Vohtenkellarinsuo, although there is evidence of much older cultivation as well.
Some indicia of Late Neolithic and Bronze Age activity occur, but no evidence of
agriculture prior to the Roman Iron Age, when a layer of ash and carbonized wood
has been registered as well as the start of the occurrence of sporadic pollen grains of
Cerealia (Vuorela 1983). The radiocarbon dates used for dating the Vohtenkellarinsuo
series are – except one – the same as used earlier in a series analysed by Glückert
(1976) for shore-level displacement studies. The use of the old dates was possible,
as pollen stratigraphical horizons seemed to correlate well between the samples.
The new radiocarbon dating 710 ± 100 BP (Hel-1745), showing a 90.8 % probability
for the period 1150-1440 cal AD, is from a level of already continuous Cerealia
occurrence, most probably starting around the transition between the Iron Age and
the Middle Ages (cf. Vuorela 1983: Fig. 5).

80
Another site, Punasuo, was sampled in Perniö as early as 1969 by Kimmo Tolonen. The
results are unpublished, except for the date 930 AD for the beginning of the continuous
rye pollen curve (Tolonen et al. 1979: 57).

194
 Kuoppajärvi in Piikkiö is situated not far from the Late Bronze Age and Pre-
Roman Iron Age site of Moisio Alistalo, but unfortunately, the sample does not
cover the Early Metal Period. Cerealia is present already in the lowest part of the
sediments, interpreted as slash-and-burn cultivation during AD 300-700; after this
period there is a continuous Cerealia occurrence and indications of grazing until
AD 1400 (Salonen et al. 1981). A check of the uncalibrated radiocarbon dates of this
sample, however, changes the dates. The earliest dating 1550 ± 160 BP (Hel-1431)
has a huge probability distribution of 50-850 cal AD, with the highest probability
(67 %) for the years 340-660, which might indicate that the series is slightly younger
than previously expected. The start of continuous occurrence of rye (Secale) is dated
to 1230 ± 120 (Hel-1430), i.e. 600-1030 cal AD.
Due to the problems concerning the dating of several of the above-mentioned
samples from the mainland part of the study area, a diagram combining all Cerealia
dates (like the one regarding the Kemiönsaari sample sites) cannot be drawn
with good enough precision. The comparison must be made on a more general
level. First of all, both the Kemiönsaari samples and the mainland samples show
sporadic early cultivation, dated to the Late Neolithic and the Bronze Age. This is
in agreement with the general view, according to which this was one area where
agriculture was first introduced in Finland (e.g. Vuorela 1999; 2002).81 It is more
problematic to compare the period of increased cultivation (the empiric limit) and
the rational limit of continuous cultivation. In general, the empiric limit in southern
Finland has earlier been generally dated somewhere in the range of 450-1000 AD
and the rational limit to the Historical Period (Donner 1984). There is no need to
disapprove these dates; this is still more or less the general picture, with perhaps
the addition that both in the archipelago and on the mainland the rational limit in
several cases can already be dated to the Late Iron Age, or even earlier. In the Paimio
area, where several sites were sampled in the 1980’s, a kind of final conclusion was,
that the first signs of human influence occur around 3500 BP, while evidence of
scattered openings in the forest cover caused by clearance first appeared around
1200 BP (Tolonen & Kukkonen 1989). Regardless of the problematic dates of the
Paimio samples, this is a plausible summary of the material. Such a conclusion is

81
There are also indications of an eastern line of introduction of agriculture in Finland. A
quite early date for the occurrence of Cerealia around 2300 BC has been obtained from
Puolanka in the northern part of Finland (Vuorela 1999; 2002: 84-87). Late Neolithic
Cerealia has been registered also in the Lake Onega area in Russian Karelia dated to
about 5000 BP (Vuorela et al. 2001). The indications of sporadic Late Neolithic and
Early Metal Period cultivation in the northern part of Finland are possibly related to
the increased contacts between eastern and northern Finland and north-western Russia
visible in the archaeological material from these periods (Meinander 1984; Lavento et al.
2004).

195
also in line with the Kemiönsaari samples, where the Late Iron Age seems to mark
a turning point, partly related to the increased importance of rye cultivation, but
evidently also in the form of an intensification of agriculture. Concerning earlier
Iron Age agriculture, it can just be noted that in the mainland cases the Middle Iron
Age is more often accentuated in the interpretations than it has so far been able to
establish in the Kemiönsaari samples.

4.4. Osteological analyses

One important source of data reflecting prehistoric economy is bone materials from
settlement sites. Osteology has therefore been widely used for such studies. This
has sometimes been done uncritically, not taking into consideration biasing factors
related to the deposition and preservation of bone and its selection for osteological
studies and archaeological interpretation. Site formation should be taken into
account, as bone assemblages may be the result of particular courses of actions and
may have been mixed and transformed during different disposal processes. In order
to better understand the deposition of bones, the importance has been stressed of
determining – in addition to species – the variation of anatomical representation of
particular elements within sites too (e.g. Beech 1995: 108). Detailed determinations,
however, require well-preserved materials. In the acid soil of Finland usually only
burnt bones are preserved. This means that the material left for osteological studies
is only a small fraction of the total material, that which for some reason has been in
contact with fire or heat. The bones collected in connection with an archaeological
excavation of a settlement site therefore do not represent a random sample directly
reflecting the importance of different animals in the economy; the result is affected
for instance by butchering techniques and by the treatment of animal products in
relation to fire at the settlement site. The state of preservation is also affected by
bone quality. Medium-sized mammals, such as seals, have numerous small, solid
bones, which more often than others remain identifiable (Fortelius 1981: 11, 14).
Large animals, such as elk or cattle, leave considerably fewer bones suitable for
identification (Ukkonen 1996: 67). In addition to these problems the shrinkage of
bones due to heat affects the possibility of exact species determination (Fortelius
1981: 12). These circumstances call for source criticism in drawing conclusions
from osteological materials. The proportions of species identified in settlement
site materials do not necessarily reflect the relative importance of different species
in the subsistence strategy. Osteological analyses reveal which species have been
utilised, but they only give a rough insight into the total mode of subsistence.

196
 In connection with the present study just about all bone materials available from
the prehistoric sites of Kemiönsaari were analysed.82 Almost all the bones derive
from small-scale trial excavations, and most of the materials are thus quite small.
In all cases seal bones are well represented (Fig. 95). Seals identified to probable
species are present only in the relatively large Mesolithic material from Bötesberget
in Dragsfjärd, where some of the bones, according to osteologist Pirkko Ukkonen,
were more reminiscent of grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) than ringed seal (Phoca
hispida). Fish bones found at four of the Stone Age / Bronze Age settlement sites also
illustrate the use of marine resources. The species identified are pike (Esox lucius),
perch (Perca fluviatilis) and cod (Gadus morhua). If the bone fragments identified
are counted, seal bones are dominant in the group of Mesolithic sites and sites
coarsely dated to the Early or Middle Neolithic (cf. Asplund 1997b: 230). One third
(31 %) of the total number of fragments are fish bones (Teleostei) and one half (49 %)
are seal (Phocidae) bones, while the only other mammals identified are hare (Lepus
timidus) and elk (Alces alces). The number of identified bones, however, is very
small, altogether only 67 fragments.
The number of identified bones from Late Neolithic / Bronze Age sites is
almost three times greater. This material too is dominated by fish bones (46 %)
and seal bones (40 %) (cf. Asplund 1997b: 231). Thus fishing and marine hunting is
accentuated throughout the Stone Age. In the Late Neolithic / Bronze Age materials
one beaver bone (Castor fiber) and one fox bone (Vulpes vulpes) also occur, as well
as one bird bone (Aves), not identified as to species. The most extensive bone
material from Kemiönsaari related to Late Neolithic subsistence has been revealed
at the Kiukainen Culture settlement site Branten in Kemiö. A total of 100 g of bone
fragments were found in a small investigation conducted in 1991. In this material it
was possible to identify 79 fragments; most of these are from seal, some from fish.
The seal bones represent all parts of the body, possibly indicating that the whole
seal was brought to the site for butchering.
So far no conclusively identified bones from domesticates have been found on
Kiukainen Culture sites. One find of interest, however, is present in the material
from Jordbromalmen in Dragsfjärd. This bone fragment (TMM 14122:128) has been
identified as a probable cattle bone (Artiodactyla cf. Bos). The bone was found in
excavations conducted in 1946. The context of the find is not exactly known, but it
is most probably related to the Kiukainen Culture or Bronze Age settlement site.

82
The main analyses were made by osteologists Tarja Formisto and Pirkko Ukkonen. The
only unanalysed sample is 57.5 g burned bone (TYA 821:1) from the Middle Neolithic
settlement site Oxmossen in the Storfinhofva village in Dragsfjärd. These bones – picked
up in 1989 from a ditch running through the site – unexpectedly turned up in 2004 when
they were donated to the Department of Archaeology at the University of Turku.

197
 Site Phocidae Teleostei Others

Mesolithic
Dragsfjärd, Nordanå B (F) +
Dragsfjärd, Bötesberget (U) +

Early and Middle Neolithic

Dragsfjärd, Ansvedja (F) +
Dragsfjärd, Nöjis (F) +
Dragsfjärd, Senatsberget (F) +
Dragsfjärd, Senatsberget (U) + + Lepus timidus
Dragsfjärd, Söderby II (F) +
Västanfjärd, Misskärr (U) Alces alces

Late Neolithic / Bronze Age

Dragsfjärd, Hammarsboda (F) +
Dragsfjärd, Hammarsboda 3 (U) + +
Dragsfjärd, Hammarsboda 2 (U) +
Dragsfjärd, Jordbro (U) + + Artiodactyla cf. Bos
Kemiö, Branten (F) +
Kemiö, Branten (U) + + Castor fiber
Vulpes vulpes
Aves

Pre-Roman Iron Age

Västanfjärd, Tappo (F) +
Västanfjärd, Tappo (T) Bos / Equus

Fig. 95. Species identified by osteologists Tarja Fromisto (F), Pirkko Ukkonen
(U) and Auli Tourunen (T) in the osteological materials from Kemiönsaari.

Other indications of domesticated animals are sparse in the materials found at the
prehistoric sites on Kemiönsaari. This is also true of the sites of special interest in
this respect – the Pre-Roman sites Makila and Tappo – which have yielded almost no
osteological material. At Makila no bones were found; in the small sample material
from Tappo two fragments have been identified. One fragment (TYA 514:16) is a
seal bone; the other is a piece of tooth enamel (TYA 514:7), identified as belonging
to a molar or pre-molar of cattle or horse (Bos M / Equus PM-M). Nevertheless, the
osteological materials do not give any conclusive support to the idea that herding
or cattle breeding played a significant role in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age or
even Early Iron Age economy. Considering the very small amount of Bronze Age
and Pre-Roman Iron Age material available, however, such a hypothesis cannot be
rejected either.

198
 Number Species As the number of bones from Early Iron
TYA 392 (F) Capra hircus Age contexts on Kemiönsaari island is very
TYA 444 (F) Capra hircus small, it is interesting to have the possibility
TYA 644 (U) Canis familiaris of comparison with additional material
Ovis / Capra gathered from the Late Bronze Age and
Teleostei Pre-Roman Iron Age site of Moisio Alistalo
TYA 658 (U) Bos taurus in Piikkiö. At this site, a sunken feature,
probably some kind of refuse pit – rich in
Fig. 96. Species identified by osteo­
burnt bones – was revealed. Some bones
logists Tarja Formisto (F) and Pirkko
Uk­ko­nen (U) in the osteo­logical ma­ from this site had already been collected
terial from Moisio Alistalo in Piikkiö. in the 1980’s, and were identified as goat
(Capra hircus). In connection with a small
excavation in 1997, conducted for the purpose of the present study, new material
was gathered and analysed. The results (Fig. 96) are quite different from what is
found on Stone Age sites. The occurrences of sheep or goat (Ovis / Capra) as well as
cattle (Bos taurus) give support to previously published results (cf. Edgren 1999b)
indicating that domesticates were common during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The
Moisio Alistalo site is radiocarbon dated to 2230 ± 100 (Hel-2571), i.e. 550 cal BC
– 50 cal AD.

199
200
5. Early Iron Age archaeology in brief
– a review with comments

5.1. Introduction

5.1.1. From the Hackman paradigm to a theory of settlement continuity

The theory of the Finnish Early Iron Age was dominated up until the early 1970’s
by the model formulated in the early 20th century by Alfred Hackman, according
to which a gradual immigration of Finnish tribes from Estonia had taken place,
starting from the Roman Iron Age. This hypothesis, based on the idea of a findless
Pre-Roman Iron Age, was presented in Hackman’s doctoral thesis Die ältere Eisenzeit
in Finnland, published in 1905. According to this work, the Pre-Roman Iron Age
lacked archaeological finds and was regarded as a period when the country had
been practically deserted. The idea of a late migration also gained support from
contemporary linguistic theories. A changing climate was given as one major
explanation for the lack of finds and the presumed lack of habitation during the
Pre-Roman Iron Age. The general idea of development was that cemeteries of the
Roman Period could not be linked to the half a millennium older settlement of the
Bronze Age. The southern and western part of Finland was interpreted as deserted
or as inhabited only by a hunting and fishing population referred to as lappalaiset,
a concept often used as a synonym for the Sámi population. The possibility of a
hunting and fishing population living in the area was, however, not foregrounded
in the discussion of settlement development. One reason might have been that
the contemporary community was strongly based on agrarian values, and the
presumed absence of an agrarian population in Pre-Roman southwestern Finland
was considered equal to a total lack of habitation (Vilkuna 1996: 17). The settlement
indicated by the cemeteries of the Roman Iron Age was thus interpreted as belonging
to newcomers from Estonia, representing the ancestors of the historical population
in Finland Proper (Hackman 1905; cf. Tallgren 1931: 60-61; Äyräpää 1951: 96).83
Already in 1917, Ailio (1917: 5-9; 1931: 45-46; cf. Vilkuna 1978: 27-28) wrote in
favour of the idea of continuous settlement development, suggesting that the finds

83
The eminent Finnish archaeologist Ella Kivikoski was one researcher who maintained
Hackman’s (1905) immigration theory. Still it is interesting that even if Kivikoski (1939:
234) could not see the settlement continuity of the Pre-Roman Iron Age she did not
neglect the possibility, but stating: “… dass eine Kontinuität in der Besiedlung des Landes
nicht nachgewiesen werden kann, schliesst aber nicht die Möglichkeit aus, dass eine solche
dennoch bestanden hat”. The idea of immigration, on the other hand, she accepted without
a doubt.

201
of the Roman Period were not a result of immigration but a cultural phenomenon
introduced through trade. Ailio’s idea did not gain understanding from colleagues
or scholars in other disciplines. Not before the 1950’s and 60’s, did new finds start
to change the old view of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. These new findings and ideas
were presented in 1969 by C. F. Meinander in his article Dåvits, En essä om förromersk
järnålder, where the continuity of settlement development was finally emphasised.
Soon afterwards, additional evidence began to be found in both archaeological
contexts (Salo 1970: 159-160) and palynological ones (Vuorela 1972; 1975; cf.
1982). The final shift of paradigm can be considered to have occurred at a large
multidisciplinary seminar held in Tvärminne in 1980, where the old migration
theory no longer received any support (Julku 1998: 54).
No major synthesis of the Finnish Pre-Roman Iron Age has been made, but
more and more information related to the period has been gathered and presented
in publications. The various materials and topics of discussion regarding the Pre-
Roman Iron Age of the coastal area have so far been best summarized by Edgren
(1999b). With regard to the question of settlement development, the Pre-Roman
settlement sites – mainly identified on the basis of the pottery style known as Morby
Ware – are nowadays considered to be important evidence of settlement continuity
in western and southern Finland. There is a general opinion that the population
using this type of ceramics can be associated with the ancestors of the historical
Finnish population later living in the same area. This assumption has attracted only
sporadic criticism (cf. Bågenholm 1992: 153; 1995: 19).

5.1.2. Chronologies

In Finnish research the Pre-Roman Iron Age has mostly been dealt with as a single
period covering the second half of the first millennium BC. In the chronology of
Salo (e.g. 1984a: 186, 199-200) the end of the period has been dated to 50 AD, thus
including the Early Roman Iron Age period B1 (Eggers 1955: 229-230; 1959: 162-170;
cf. Salo 1968: 11) in the Finnish Pre-Roman Iron Age. Similar thoughts concerning
the end of the period have been present within Swedish archaeology (e.g. Stenberger
1964). In current Estonian chronology, the Pre-Roman Iron Age is likewise dated
to 500 BC – 50 AD (Lang & Kriiska 2001), while in other chronologies the period
boundary is placed at the end of the first millennium BC (e.g. Carlsson 2001; Jensen
2003).
In the northern part of the Baltic, a more refined inner chronology of the Pre-
Roman Iron Age (like the La Tène subphases A-D) has proved difficult to achieve.
This has been possible mainly in the case of southern Scandinavia and the Swedish

202
islands Öland and Gotland, where there is rich find material from the late Pre-
Roman Iron Age in particular. Based on Danish materials, a four period relative
chronology (I-II, IIIa-b) evolved during the 1950’s (Becker 1961). During the same
decennium a four period chronology (A-D) regarding Gotland was put forward
(Nylén 1955: 397-403). More recently, a chronology of no less than six subperiods
(1-6) related to weaponry and weapon graves (including finds from the Swedish
mainland) has been discussed (Nicklasson 1997a; 1997b). In this chronology, the
last centuries BC (and the first century AD) are accentuated even more than before,
as five of the six subperiods relate to the Late Pre-Roman Iron Age, the start of
which is dated to around 150 BC. Usually the boundary between the Early and Late
Pre-Roman Iron Age has been dated earlier, around 250 BC, like in current Estonian
(Lang & Kriiska 2001) and Danish (Jensen 2003) chronologies.
In terms of Central European chronologies, the Scandinavian Late Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age can be approximately synchronised with the Hallstatt
(Ha) (Randsborg 1996: 68; Jensen 1997: 17, 46) and La Tène (LT) chronologies (e.g.
Stenberger 1964: 339-340; Sauter 1976: 131; Pleiner 1993: 2). The Late Bronze Age is
contemporary with Ha A2 – Ha D1, and the Pre-Roman Iron Age comparable to Ha
D2 – LT D. Local chronologies, however, may still be different. For example, in the
case of northeastern Poland a somewhat older six-period Bronze Age chronology
from 1950-620 BC has been proposed (Dąbrowski 1997: 88).
Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age chronologies have been developed on the
basis of archaeological typology and cross-dating, but later they have been tested
and corrected by means of radiocarbon dating as well as dendrochronology.84 For
example, in Denmark dendrochronological dates have been presented for the famous
oak coffins (Randsborg 1992; Jensen 1993), and have been compared with the results

84
Moving from a relative chronology for the Bronze Age to absolute calendar dates did
also stimulate a discussion concerning so-called ‘marker dates’ (Baille 1991; 1996).
These are particular years of changes in annual tree-ring growth that can be identified
in a number of dendrochronological series in Europe and in some cases worldwide.
It has been suggested that these markers can mostly be correlated with volcanic
activity. The best-known of these dendrochronological marker dates is 1628/1627 BC,
which has been hypothetically linked with the eruption of the volcano Thera in the
Greek archipelago. The marker dates are of importance as they allow the correlation
of different dendrochronological curves. The possibility has also been suggested that
the markers actually represent short but important transition periods, which may have
directly or indirectly influenced cultural development, as reflected in the archaeological
record. The eruptions may have created dust veils, sulphur dioxide and water vapour,
affecting climate and farming economies for several years (Baille 1991: 238). In the
Baltic Sea area it thus could be considered whether the marker dates 1628, 1150 and 431
correlate in some way with the demarcation of the Early Bronze Age, the Late Bronze
Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age. At present such a scenario does not seem likely as
the archaeological period boundaries differ from the marker dates, regardless of a
somewhat similar periodicity.

203
of radiocarbon dating (Vandkilde et al. 1996: Fig 13). The dendrochronological and
radiocarbon dates are in reasonably close agreement, and show that the oak coffins
preserved were all used during some generations between the 1390’s and the 1270’s
BC. New chronological data also seem to support a correlation between Bronze
Age chronologies in large parts of Europe. Decisive breaks in continuity take place
at approximately the same time in areas covering different cultures and societies
(Randsborg 1992: 101-104).
In Denmark a total of more than 300 radiocarbon dates are available for the Late
Neolithic and Bronze Age, but unfortunately the Late Bronze Age is not particularly
well represented (Vandkilde et al. 1996). For the Pre-Roman Iron Age there are
forty-two dates available, primarily from settlement sites. Both the available Late
Bronze Age samples and the Pre-Roman samples support a boundary around 500
cal BC or slightly later for the Bronze Age and Iron Age transition. There are a few
broad dates from the eighth and seventh centuries BC, but statistical boundary
calculations give the ± 1 sigma range 520-450 cal BC for the start and 70 cal BC-10
cal AD for the end of the period (Vandkilde et al. 1996: 195-196). This suggests that
the traditional general boundaries 500-1 BC for the Pre-Roman Iron Age can still
be regarded as valid. With regard to the inner chronology of the period, from a
Finnish point of view there is not much that can be added. One can identify some
early and late Pre-Roman finds and features, the former in many respects related
to continuities from the Bronze Age and the latter to new influences preceding the
Roman Iron Age (cf. Meinander 1969: 39). If an absolute chronological boundary
between the Early and Late Finnish Pre-Roman Iron Age had to be set, it could be
in line with the Estonian chronology, i.e. 250 BC.

5.2. Bronze Age and Early Iron Age coastal pottery types

5.2.1. Local ceramics

The term ‘epineolithic ceramics’ is sometimes applied to Finnish pottery types of the
Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. It was first used by Hackman when referring to
ceramics based on the Neolithic tradition but made after the Stone Age (Hackman
1917a: 242-246; 1917b: 61; Meinander 1954b: 168). The epineolithic pottery of
southwestern Finland is regarded as a continuation of the tradition of the Kiukainen
Culture. The pottery of the Kiukainen Culture (Kiukainen Ware) is characterised
by flat bottoms, straight or slightly profiled walls, and a decoration restricted to the
upper part of the pot; the decoration consists of pits, comb impressions, twisted
cord impressions, and lines, in one or several horizontal zones (Meinander 1954a:

204
134-148; Holm 2000: Fig. 4). Horizontal lines, zigzag or ‘fish-bone’ ornaments and
other line ornaments, occasionally encircle the pot. Textile impressions may occur
on the flat vessel bottoms, as well as on the outer surface (Lavento 2000: 121, Fig.
4; 2001: 23, 113, 166; 2004b: 309). The outer and (more often) the inner surface may
be striated. This type of ceramics was apparently in use during the Late Neolithic
and still – more or less unchanged – at the beginning of the Bronze Age (Meinander
1954a: 179-186; 1954b: 168; Siiriäinen 1969; 1974; Carpelan 1973: 196; 1982: 269-
270; Salo 1981: 311). On Kemiönsaari the most typical examples of Kiukainen
Culture pottery have been found on the Jordbromalmen site in Dragsfjärd and the
Österbacka Nedergård site in Kemiö.
From the Kiukainen Culture ceramics a simpler type of striated, pit-decorated
pottery evolved.85 The emergence of this type has been dated to the end of the
Early Bronze Age, and most of the finds have
been regarded as belonging to the Late Bronze
Age (Meinander 1954b: 168-173; Kivikoski
1971: 25-26; Salo 1981: 311-313). The term
‘Paimio type pottery’ (or Paimio Ware) has
been increasingly used in discussing this type
of ceramics (Salo 1981: 311-313; 1984b: 154-155;
cf. Edgren 1993a: 137). This may be somewhat
misleading, as the term is closely identified with
the one and only reconstructed vessel from the
Toispuol­ojannummi site in Paimio (Meinander
1954b: Tafel 2), while the type actually seems
to cover almost all striated, pit-decorated ware,
regardless of size and shape (Salo 1981: 312;
1984b: 155). The starting point for a definition
of Paimio type pottery would thus be that it is
Fig. 97. Fragment of a Paimio type
coarse, striated and usually thick-walled. The pot (TYA 611:36) from Ham­mars­
shape is characterised by a flat bottom, and a boda in Dragsfjärd.

85
The Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age has been regarded as period of decline of
pottery production. Ikäheimo (2002) has interpreted this as related to a change towards
a colder and moister climate unsuitable for pottery making. This is not convincing. If
the use of pottery had been important, large-scale production would most probably
have been possible with simple technical adjustments, like increased use of indoor
drying. Another explanation given is that the use of pottery would have decreased
due to increased production and use of wooden containers, more easily made due to
woodworking tools made of metal (e.g. Salo 1989: 20). Evidence of wooden vessels can
be seen in the Early Roman Iron Age, when resin used for caulking wooden funerary
urns have been found in Finnish graves (Salo 1968: 178-180). This kind of material occurs
more seldom in Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age contexts (Edgren 1993b: 15).

205
slightly inward-turned, straight or slightly s-profiled wall. The decoration usually
consists of a single row of pits on the upper part of the vessel. Previously, in at least
one case, a pot with two rows of pits has been presented as belonging to the same
type (KM 6914:67; Meinander 1954b, Tafel 23:g). On Kemiönsaari, Paimio type
pottery with a double row of pits (Fig. 97) has been identified on the Hammarsboda
2 site in Dragsfjärd.
In the coastal zone of Finland some textile-impressed ware also occurs, some
of which can be defined as belonging to eastern and inland pottery styles (e.g.
Meinander 1984b: 41-43; Strandberg 1996), but textile impressions evidently also
occurs on Paimio type pottery as a surface treatment similar to that of the striation
of the vessel surface. This is a somewhat problematic matter as a specific study
on textile impressed pottery by Lavento (2001: 166-167) does not acknowledge the
occurrence of textile impression on coastal Bronze Age ceramics. There are cases
of such textile-impressed pottery decorated with a row of pits for example at the
Ketohaka site in Salo (KM 20562:358; Uino 1986: 125-129, Fig. 5:5), and the Niuskalan
Polttolaitoksenkatu site in Turku (Asplund 1997a: 29-31). Calibrated radiocarbon
dates from cultural layer 201 at Ketohaka containing this pottery give the result
1400-800 cal BC, indicating that the pottery fragments are from the end of the Early
Bronze Age or the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.86 As striated Paimio type
pottery has also been found in the same cultural layer (KM 20562:253; Uino 1986:
Fig.5:5; cf. Hackman 1917a), the dating result suggests that both the striated and the
textile-impressed, plainly pit-decorated ware did develop concurrently, probably
during the final part of the Early Bronze Age. Another hint towards such a dating
is the Period III bronze fibula found in 1992 at the Paimio Toispuolojannummi site,
i.e. the eponym site of the Paimio type pottery (Edgren 1993a: 137; Vanhatalo 1994).
The textile-impressed Niuskala Pottolaitoksenkatu pot is somewhat younger, from
the earlier half of the Late Bronze Age. A radiocarbon dating from crust on the inner
surface gave the result 2770 ± 30 BP (Ua-33769), i.e. 1000-830 cal BC. This is further
evidence for the contemporaneity of striated and textile impressed Paimio Ware.
Inquiry into the inner chronology – especially the Bronze Age stage – of
Kiukainen Culture ceramics has proved difficult. According to one view, the early
pottery was rich in individual elements and had a variety of compositions, whereas
younger pottery was poorer in symbols and exhibited simpler compositions (Holm
2000: 199-201). This view could be right, but it does not describe in closer detail the

86
These datings have previously been presented in a more compact form, indicating the
period 1330-1010 cal BC as the dating for the layer in question (Carpelan 1982: 270; Uino
1986: 129, 132). This might be close to the most probable dating, but the fact remains that
the wide probability ranges of the datings, 2870 ± 120 BP (Hel-1184) and 2880 ± 130 BP
(Hel-1190) do not permit such a straightforward interpretation.

206
process of change in the elements and composition of decoration. One idea is that
the period of Kiukainen Ware began with a stage characterised by the absence of
pits in the decoration pattern (Meinander 1954a: 141-142), later developing into a
style more in favour of pit-decoration. It may be noted that fragments of one pot
from the settlement site Kuusisto in Nakkila, regarded as belonging to the end
of the Kiukainen Culture or the beginning of the Bronze Age, are decorated with
several rows of pits, interrupted by vertical zones of diagonal line-ornaments (Salo
1981: 62, Kuva 14). Without considering the vertical grouping of ornaments, it
could be considered, whether the Early Bronze Age stage could be characterised
by pots decorated with several rows of pits, i.e. a pattern which does not fit into
the definition of Paimio type pottery (Asplund 1997a: 32-33). The fragments of one
such pot (Fig. 98), with smooth walls and decorated with at least four horizontal
rows of pits, found at the Hammarsboda 2 site in Dragsfjärd, have been included
in this discussion (Asplund 1997b: 253-254).
This pot and fragments of three others, all decorated with at least three horizontal
rows of pits, were AMS-dated in order to test the dating hypothesis. The fragments
of the three other vessels have been found at the Niuskala Polttolaitoksenkatu site
in Turku.87 Apart from the plain pit decoration, the dated group is heterogeneous;

Fig. 98. Part of a plainly pit-decorated pot from Hammars­

boda in Dragsfjärd (TYA 611:17-18).

87
A part of a similar pot decorated with pits in four horizontal rows, found from the
Kiukainen Culture site Rainesåsen in Pirttikylä, has also been published (Miettinen
1980: 26, 29-30).

207
Fig. 99. Probability distributions of radiocarbon dates (GrA-12392, GrA-12393, GrA-
14113, GrA-14114) from plainly pit-decorated Kiukainen Culture Ware.

the size of the pits varies as well as the surface treatment. What is most important,
however, is that the dating result (Fig. 99) does not support the hypothesis
presented. The Niuskala Polttolaitoksenkatu pots seem to date to the turn of the
Middle and Late Neolithic, i.e. the early stage of the Kiukainen Culture. The dating
of the Hammarsboda pot, 2130-2080 or 2040-1880 cal BC is somewhat younger, but
this dating too is older than the Bronze Age. According to this result the dating of
plainly pit-decorated Kiukainen Culture ceramics does not differ from the dating
of ordinary Kiukainen Ware. The dating material is, however, still limited. Only a
few AMS-datings from organic residue on Kiukainen pottery have previously been
published. Two dates are from shards, the decoration pattern of which has not been
described. One was found at the Myrsbacka site in Saltvik in the Åland Islands; it
yielded a date to the period 2290-2040 cal BC (Holm 2000: 198), and the other (KM
34005:569) at the Etukämppä site in Eurajoki; it gave the result 3785 ± 50 BP (Hela-
770), i.e. 2410-2030 cal BC (Lehtonen 2005: 12-14). A third dating has been made
from a small pit-decorated shard (TYA 178:363) interpreted as Kiukainen Ware; this
piece, found at the Hiukkasaari site in Vammala, yielded the comparable date 3700
± 65 BP (Hela-261), i.e. 2290-1890 cal BC (Luoto 2004: 73, Kuva 26).88

5.2.2. Foreign influences

At several settlement sites of the western Finnish Bronze Age pieces of small,
carefully made vessels have been found, the ceramic fashion of which differs from
the local tradition (Fig. 100). They have been made of fine-grained clay and given

88
Luoto (2004: 74) has also referred to two ordinary charcoal dates from the Niuskala site
in Turku of a comparable age, 3670 ± 100 BP (Hel-2118) and 3840 ± 100 BP (Hel-2132).
The majority of the Niuskala pottery is interpretable as Kiukainen Ware.

208
 Fig. 100. Fragment of a small pot made of fine-grained clay paste
(TYA 174:1a) from the Lemu Lehmihaka site in Perniö.

a smoothed surface, which is sometimes polished. The pots are usually well fired.
A typical feature is the sharp-angled profile; the bottom is straight, the lower part
broadens towards the angle, and the neck of the pot is typically convex. This type
of pot is usually regarded as a loan reaching Finland through Scandinavia, where it
was common during the Late Bronze Age; the origin of the form, however, appears
to be related to the Lusatian Culture south of the Baltic, where these pots were
influenced by metal dishes (Meinander 1954b: 170; Salo 1981: 316-317; Luoto 1984:
118; Gustavsson 1998: 77, 123-124).
Another loan from the same cultural sphere is rusticated Late Bronze Age
pottery, with a surface treatment using coarse clay slip, sometimes combined
with a finger-furrowed finish. In Finland this type of pottery occurs mainly on
the Åland Islands (Meinander 1954b: 144-150; Luoto 1984: 113-114; Gustavsson
1998). The largest material of this kind, from the Kökar Otterböte site, has – after
a re-evaluation – been regarded as related to direct contacts between the southern
Baltic area and the Åland Islands (Gustavsson 1998). In accordance with this, a
more direct influence from the Lusatian Culture might be considered with regard
to other parts of material culture as well. The smooth-surfaced profiled pottery
could have been introduced in connection with activities involving the Lusatian
Culture more directly throughout the Baltic, rather than only through Scandinavia
as previously believed. The occurrence of the typical finger-furrowed pottery on the
Finnish mainland has been regarded as doubtful (Meinander 1954b: 149), but the
occurrence of (some type of) rusticated ceramics has been mentioned in the case of
the Kärsämäki site in Turku, Pahka Pahamäki and Vanhalinna in Lieto, Lautkankare
in Sauvo and Toisopuolojannummi in Paimio; the Kärsämäki finds, however, are

209
from a Roman Period cemetery and not from the Bronze Age (Luoto 1980: 61; 1984:
114; 2004: 80; Gustavsson 1998: 75).89 In addition, rusticated ceramics have been
identified at the Late Neolithic – Bronze Age site Niuskala Polttolaitoksenkatu in
Turku (Asplund 1997a: 31, Kuva 5).

5.2.3. Morby Ware

5.2.3.1. Towards a definition

Hackman’s term ‘epineolithic ceramics’ also included the pottery of the Pre-
Roman Iron Age, although it was at that time not known as a separate group or
dealt with in detail. Before the type definition and dating of Morby Ware, these
finds could be referred to as for example ‘primitive’, as in the Salo Isokylä case,
when "primitive" ceramics were found under Late Roman Iron Age and Migration
Period grave constructions (Tallgren 1931: 188-189). The Morby type of ceramics
is the most important artefact material related to the Pre-Roman Iron Age in
southwestern Finland. Most of the settlement sites and some of the graves of this
period are identified on the basis of the occurrence of this ware. About fifty sites
with Morby Ware have been mentioned so far (Edgren 1999b: 316), mainly in
the coastal zone of mainland Finland. The number of occurrences is, of course,
dependent on the site definition as well as on the definition of the pottery type;
in this study over 80 Finnish sites containing Morby Ware or Morby-like ceramics
have been counted (Fig. 101). Morby Ware is present in one cemetery in Flaka on
Lemland as well as on some other sites in the Åland Islands (Edgren 1993a: 154;
1999b: 317). During the 1980’s and 1990’s several sites containing Morby Ware were
registered on the Ostrobothnian coast (Miettinen, M. 1982; 1989; 1994a; 1998). The
northernmost occurrence is from the Tervakangas cemetery in Raahe (Forss & Jarva
1992; Ylimaunu 1999).
The Morby type of ceramics evidently continued the native ceramic tradition and
is probably a development based on the Paimio type pottery. The definition of the
type is mainly based on descriptions by Meinander (1954b: 173-179; 1969: 40-47) and
Edgren (1969; 1999b: 313-317). According to the commonly held view these vessels

89
From the Pahka Pahamäki site there is a radiocarbon date available from one pot fragment
(TYA 104: 884) treated with clay slip. The dating was made from crust in connection
with another study and is so far unpublished. The dating suggests a Pre-Roman age for
the thick-walled, coarsely tempered but rather smoothly finished pot, which represents
a type previously unknown in Pre-Roman contexts. The only hint towards a Pre-Roman
date with regard to the style of the pot is the top of the rim decorated with oval (maybe
fingertip-made) imprints (e.g. TYA 104: 859).

210
are made of coarsely tempered
clay, the surface is striated, and 





the upper part of the vessel is

slightly s-profiled. The occurrence 




of striation has not always been 













regarded as a decisive factor for


















distinguis­hing the type; according




















 








to La­ven­to (2001: 117) a “hatched”









 


















 




















sur­face occur­red in only two















































 









  
 









 








 




 



thirds of the Morby Ware vessels


  
 

 
 

 







  








 














examined by him. What should be 













 








under­lined is that typical Morby

Ware is always deco­rated (even 








though there may exist Morby-

related pottery which is not).
The ornaments are placed on the 








shoulder of the pot and consist of

impressions in groups rather than Fig. 101. The distribution of Morby Ware. Circles
in conti­nuous lines (Fig. 102). This refer to uncertain identification, or pottery re­
sembling Morby Ware.
placing of the decoration elements
gives the decoration pattern its characteristic rhythm. The most typical (although not
the most numerous) impression is the ‘cat-paw imprint’ – an impression of irregular
shape with a wavy bottom, which could have been made with a knot (Carpelan
1980: 189), a leaf bud (Reisborg 1989: 92) or possibly with a cone (Asplund 1997a:
255). In the study by Lavento (2001: 117) the cat’s paw ornament existed in only one
sixth of the vessels. Other decoration elements used are twisted cord impressions,
pits and incisions. Typically the top of the rim is also decorated with impressions.
To this description one could furthermore add that a textile-impression-like surface
treatment equivalent to striation occurs in at least one case (Fig. 103).90 Fragments
of this particular pot have been found in a cairn at Peltomäki in Ulvila. In the first
publication of the find it was equated with the typical Morby Ware found at the same
site (Tuovinen 1980: 190), but later it was connected for some reason with ‘coastal
textile ceramics’ (Salo 1981: 314-315). This is a heterogeneous type of ceramics; in
reality it seems to consist of various epineolithic ceramic types, both inland ones
and coastal striated ware, the ordinary surface treatment of which was occasionally
replaced with impressions made with coarse cloth.

90
According to Lavento (2001: 117) textile impression does not occur in Morby Ware (nor
in coastal Bronze Age pottery, as noted above).

211
 Fig. 102. Typical Morby Ware (TYA 156:79) from the Vermuntila Kallio site
in Rauma.

Fig. 103. Textile-impressed Morby Ware (TYA 112:11) from the Peltomäki site
in Ulvila.

212
 The most serious problem with regard to the definition of Morby Ware is that
it is mostly based on subjective descriptions alone. A systematic analysis of the
technological and stylistic characteristics of the whole Finnish material has not as
yet been done. Variables included in such a study could be 1) the composition of
the clay and temper, 2) the profile of the vessel, 3) the form of the rim (cf. Reisborg
1989: 98-100), 4) the surface treatment (including the treatment of the inside of the
pot), 5) the decoration elements, and 6) the decoration patterns.91 In this connection
one should also make a comparison with other striated pottery, Paimio Ware and
especially Morby-related undecorated ceramics. The characteristics of Morby Ware
should be examined in a polythetic manner; a comparison of decoration patterns
regardless of the surface treatment, for example, would probably reveal different
geographical associations than a focus on striation as a main element, and so on.
Simplified further, this is a question of understanding 1) style and 2) technology. In
the current state of research the style of Morby Ware is best described as a ‘rhythm’.
(cf. Edgren 1999b: 315), depicted in the grouping of the decorative elements on
the vessel surface. Technologically, Morby Ware seems to be characterised by its
relatively small amount of temper, with an exceptionally large grain size, which
creates a sparse crackleware-like fracturing of the vessel surface.92 Technologically,
this type of ceramics probably reflects a local tradition, but explanations of the
stylistic development could also be sought elsewhere.

5.2.3.2. The Lusatian culture and the Baltic

The influence of the Late Bronze Age Lusatian culture is well known along the
shores of the whole Baltic, in the form of smooth-walled and profiled ceramic bowls
as explained above. These finds are usually interpreted as a cultural loan, reaching,
for example, Finland through contacts with the Scandinavian Bronze Age culture.
Contacts between the Lusatian culture and Scandinavia can also be seen in the spread
of certain bronze finds; these include, for instance, the so-called Gotlandic socketed
axes, with their main distribution comprising Gotland and the northernmost part
of the Lusatian territory (Larsson 1993a: Figur 3; 1993b: Fig 106). This area, lying
between the rivers Oder and Vistula, is where the greater part of Scandinavian

91
A classification of decoration into elements, motifs and designs, as made by Lavento
(2001) when focusing on the study of textile ceramics, would seem appropriate also for
the closer analysis of Morby Ware.
92
This is probably what Lavento (2001: 168) meant when characterizing the paste of
Morby Ware as “brittle”. In addition to crushed stone, Lavento (2001: 117) has noted
also chamotte and organic temper in Morby Ware.

213
bronze objects found in Poland have been discovered (cf. Bukowski 1998: Ryc. 176).
Earlier there was a tendency to explain both the above-mentioned pottery and the
bronze objects as a result of Scandinavian trading activity, ignoring the possibility
of an active role on the part of the Lusatian culture itself in the contacts that are
reflected in the archaeological material. More lately the ‘Lusatian connection’ has
been much debated in Scandinavian archaeology and also other – more complex
– explanations for the nature of these contacts have been presented.
One example is the study by Kaliff (2001) dealing with the possible connection
between archaeological material indicating long-term contacts between the Swedish
and Polish coasts, and the description of the Scandinavian origin of the Goths
indicated in Jordanes’ Getica, written in Constantinople in 551 AD. Kaliff’s scenario
points out long-term interaction between the Pomeranian area and Scandinavia,
where long-lasting trade contacts, particularly between elite groups, could have
influenced the cultures in the Vistula area. This exchange could have been going
on for centuries, along with a continuous cultural development from the Bronze
Age to the Iron Age AD, without major breaks. This could over time have led to
cultural similarities, and, according to Kaliff (2001: 61), possibly also to an ethnical
identification. The memory of this exchange network could have lived on as oral
tradition when Jordanes’ Getica was written down, and transformed into the myth
of the migration of the Goths from the island Scandza.
One site of special interest in connection with the Lusatian influence is the Vistad
defended settlement site in the province of Östergötland in Sweden, excavated by
Larsson during 1988-1990 and radiocarbon dated to about 900-500 or 1000-400 BC
(Larsson 1993a; 1993b; Larsson & Hulthén 2004). The settlement site is encircled
by remnants of a palisade, within which structures of five houses were found.
The houses are rectangular in shape and have roof-supporting walls – a structure
entirely different from Scandinavian Late Bronze Age houses. The chief finds at
the site consisted of high-quality pottery with Lusatian characteristics, the foreign
origin of which is further supported by ceramological analyses (Larsson & Hulthén
2004). The finds and features at Vistad indicate very direct contacts with the
Lusatian culture. Larsson’s (1993a: 146-147; 1993b: 135-138, 142, 147) interpretation
is that the site must be seen in the light of long-distance contacts within a chiefdom-
type of society; foreigners were present at Vistad due to the contacts by a local
chief with chiefs in present-day Poland. The site was probably not permanently
inhabited, but repeatedly visited by Lustatian groups. One possible objective of the
visits has been suggested to be the search for iron ore, an explanation supported by
the fact that particles of iron slag have been found in clay from the bottom parts of
hearts and kilns at Vistad (Larsson & Hulthén 2004: 52). Another perspective on the
presence of foreigners at Vistad is that this could have been part of a social strategy

214
practised by the local leaders, where the foreigners’ knowledge of iron technology
was maybe a key factor; the control of the secret iron technology promoted the
elite’s prestige and made foreign activity possible (Larsson & Hulthén 2004: 53-
55). 93 Pottery with Lusatian character – imported or locally made – also occurs on
many other sites in southern Scandinavia. One of the biggest finds of Late Bronze
Age ceramic materials comes from the Pryssgården site in Östergötland, which
include rusticated, burnished as well as striated ware; many vessel forms show
similarities with Lusatian pottery, including fragments of low bowls of a type
unique for Scandinavia (Ståhlbom 1994; Kaliff 2001: 51-54).
Another site of importance is the settlement site of Otterböte on the island of
Kökar in the Åland Islands, excavated in 1946 and 1950 but re-evaluated in the 1990’s
by Gustavsson (1997; 1998; cf. Meinander 1954b: 121-136). Otterböte was previously
regarded as a seal-hunting station for hunters from the Finnish mainland or the
Åland Islands, but a multidisciplinary study of the material has yielded an entirely
new picture. The ceramic material represents some 300 individual vessels; most of
them jars with a rusticated surface. Most characteristic is the finger furrow pattern
found on the vessel surface. Finger-furrowed pottery has been found in small
amounts at many Late Bronze Age sites around the Baltic, but it occurs in larger
numbers only at Otterböte and on Lusatian culture sites. The distribution of finger-
furrowed pottery is even wider than is shown by Gustavsson (1998: 67-82, Fig 110;
cf. Kaliff 2001: 51, Fig 10) as finger-furrowed pottery is also a lead artefact type in
Halland in Sweden (e.g. Artelius 1989), and occurs in small amounts in western
Latvia as well (Vasks 1991: 190, Tablica III:4). What is most interesting is that the
clay in the Otterböte pottery differs from the local clay on the Åland Islands, but
mineralogically closely resembles the clays in pottery from Bornholm and Poland.
A variety of plant imprints on the Otterböte pottery also suggests a southern origin.
These include millet, chick pea and grass pea, which cannot have been cultivated
in the northern part of the Baltic area. Gustavsson’s (1998) interpretation of the
material is that people from the southern part of the Baltic used Otterböte as a
hunting station and spent the winter months at the site.

93
The idea of Vistad being a fortified foreign type of settlement closely related to a
powerful chiefdom has been criticised by Hauptman Wahlgren (2002: 138-144). She has
questioned whether the interpretation of the comparatively sparse material is the only
possible explanation. One point in Hauptman Wahlgren’s reasoning is the possibility that
the rusticated pottery often found at Late Bronze sites in the area represents settlement,
while sites where this type of pottery is absent – like in Vistad – could represent places
used in ritual contexts. It has also been pointed out that remains of small buildings
interpreted as cult houses that occur on both settlement sites and cemeteries are
reminiscent of the rectangular houses of the Vistad site (Kaliff 1995; 2001: 56-58).

215
 The archaeometrical studies of the Otterböte materials give a new perspective
on Bronze Age contacts between Poland and the northern part of the Baltic. The
facts presented by Gustavsson (1997; 1998) strongly indicate that the Otterböte
pottery was not made locally but most probably in the Lusatian cultural sphere on
the south coast of the Baltic. This raises new questions concerning the nature and
scale of contacts.94 The role of other settlement sites with the same type of material
probably needs to be re-evaluated in the light of the Otterböte findings (cf. Edgren
1998: 47). It should even be considered whether contacts could have continued
during the Pre-Roman Iron Age as well, although less evident in the archaeological
material – the same contacts later becoming visible during the Roman Iron Age,
when imported objects from the southern part of the Baltic show up in cemeteries
in Östergötland and on Öland (Kaliff 2001: 34-41) as well as in the East Baltic area
and on the Finnish mainland. One key issue here may be the development of the
eastern route from the Vistula river area northward. The western route from the
Oder to Bornholm and Southern Scania has usually been considered most important
during the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age (cf. Bukowski 1998: 386,
Ryc. 178). The Vistula route may have become important later, during the Roman
Iron Age, thus influencing the northeastern part of the Baltic in a new way.

5.2.3.3. Morby Ware and Lusatian culture influence

The decoration pattern of Morby Ware has in some cases been traced to the east,
comparing it with Russian pottery types from the upper Volga region (e.g. Salo 1984a:
194). Although interesting, the eastern element in Morby Ware remains, however,
unclear. When Meinander (1954b: 176-178) first presented his ideas concerning
the origin of Morby Ware, he pointed out another interesting resemblance, in this
case with decoration found on Late Bronze Age Lusatian-type ceramics. What is
strange, however, is that some of the parallels were found in the southern part of
the Lusatian Culture, for instance Bohemia. Imported pottery of this type has not
been found in Finland, but there is one example in a museum in Estonia (Fig. 104).
The pot was purchased by the Estonian History Museum in the 19th century from
the manor owner C. E. von Liphart. Unfortunately there is no information as to

94
Gustavsson’s interpretations have not raised much criticism. It can be noted, however,
that Lang (1999e: 81–82) has questioned whether the building tradition should not also
be considered when evaluating the origin of the people of the Otterböte settlement.
Huts of the Otterböte type seem to be rare in Central Europe and Scandinavia, but
might be associated with stone foundations found elsewhere on the Finnish coast.

216
Fig. 104. Smooth-walled pot (A 352) from the Estonian History Museum in Tallinn with
a decoration ‘rhythm’ reminiscent of Morby Ware. Photo by Toomas Tamla / Estonian
History Museum.

where the pot had been found. It is quite possible that it had been acquired for the
manor from somewhere else in Europe. The vessel form is reminiscent of pottery
related to the Jastorf Culture and could thus have originated, for example, from
Germany.
In typical Lusatian Culture pottery, direct parallels to the form or decoration
pattern of Morby Ware are difficult to find. Lusatian pottery types are characterised
by several vessel shapes and decoration patterns, none of which are especially close
to the shape and decoration of Morby Ware. In the most interesting geographical
area for comparisons – the northeastern part of the Lusatian Culture along the
river Vistula – no pottery styles reminiscent of Morby Ware occur (cf. Dąbrowski

217
1997: 19-41). In considering the idea of Lusatian pottery influencing the decoration
pattern of Finnish Morby Ware, the Polish Early Iron Age pottery styles reminiscent
of Lusatian pottery types should also be taken into account. The Post-Lusatian
cultures form a difficult complex, including Pomeranian, Wielbark, Cloche Grave,
Oksywie and Przeworsk cultures as well as Zarubintsy and even Jastorf cultures, all
of which show certain similarities with that of the Lusatian culture (Węgrzynowicz
1995; Dąbrowski 1997: 181; Bokiniec 2005). The only similarity between Pomeranian
or Cloche Grave Ware (cf. Węgrzynowicz et al. 1995; Pietrzak & Podgórski 2005)
and Morby Ware seems to be the main placement of the decoration on the shoulder
and the rim of the vessels. The one or two cases of similarity of the decoration itself
may be incidental. In the mainly Roman Period pottery materials from the large
Przeworsk culture grave fields (Dąbrowska 1997; Andrzejowski 1998; Godłowski
& Wichman 1998; Ziemlińska-Odojowa 1999), no similarities with Morby Ware
seem to exist at all. A close connection between Morby Ware and pottery from the
southern part of the Baltic thus does not seem likely. It cannot be totally ruled
out, however, that the decoration rhythm of Morby Ware might to some degree
follow general stylistic ideas discernible also in the southern and eastern part of
the Baltic.

5.2.3.4. Radiocarbon dates and contact dates

During the last decades of the 20th century Morby Ware was regarded as belonging
mainly to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. A series of 49 radiocarbon dates from Morby
Ware contexts published by Edgren (1999b) show, however, a much wider
distribution of dates also covering the Late Bronze Age, a fact which cannot go
unnotified as it is based on such a large number of dates.95 The wide chronological
range is best exemplified when the datings presented by Edgren are shown as a
sum of probability distributions (Fig. 105). If the period boundaries are calculated
using a model of uniform distribution with the OxCal program (© Bronk Ramsey
1999) the result gives the ± 1 sigma range 1020–890 cal BC for the beginning of the
period and 60–170 cal AD for the end (Asplund 2004). The dates providing this

95
The number of datings is comparable to that of the Danish Pre-Roman radiocarbon
datings discussed earlier – actually somewhat bigger. For some reason there are more
radiocarbon dates available related to Early Iron Age pottery compared with, for
example, Bronze Age ceramic types. The age distribution of Finnish radiocarbon dates
determined during 1968-1990 in fact shows a strong peak in the distribution around
2000 BP (Jungner 1995), perhaps indicating a more general need to date Early Iron Age
finds and features than those of other periods.

218
Fig. 105. Sum of probability distributions for radiocarbon dates from Finnish sites
containing Morby Ware according to information from Edgren (1999b: Fig. 7; cf. Asplund
2004: Fig. 2).

distribution have been regarded as significant and as supportive of the idea that
Morby Ware came into use already during the Late Bronze Age.96 Based on Edgren’s
(1999b) list of radiocarbon dates, complemented with finds from closed contexts
(unfortunately not mentioned), Carpelan & Uino (2003: 82-83) have later continued
the discussion, suggesting the Morby Ware dating 700 cal BC – 300 cal AD. The
beginning of the use of Morby Ware – actually the Paimio Ware / Morby Ware
transition – is here equalised with the Nordic Bronze Age Period V/VI transition.
The radiocarbon dates providing such a wide chronological distribution of
Morby Ware have later been criticized, pointing out several general problems
associated with the use of radiocarbon dates for the periodisation of phenomena
and more specifically the problem of calibration of radiocarbon dates from the
Bronze Age – Iron Age transition (Asplund 2004). The general problems include,

96
If one would like to trace Morby Ware even earlier in the Bronze Age, there is actually
one Early Bronze Age date 2985 ± 75 BP (Hela-133) from next to a sherd of Morby-
like pottery (KM 24388:118) from a cairn at the Luistari site in Eura. This dating has,
however, been explained as probably deriving from an earlier settlement site layer
at the same location (Lehtosalo-Hilander 1999: 42), and has not been included in the
material published by Edgren (1999b).

219
for example, the mixing of datings on different materials as well as the ‘old wood
problem’. In the case of Morby Ware chronology, the relation of some of the dated
contexts with the pottery itself can also be questioned – this has even been stressed
by Edgren (1999b: 326) himself when publishing the dates. The picture does, in fact,
become somewhat different if only AMS-dated pottery is chosen for the analysis.
Unfortunately, this reduces the amount of material considerably. At present, there
are only nine AMS-dates from organic residue (crust) from Morby Ware (Fig. 106).97
A comparison of the probability distributions of single dates reveals a consistent
group of six dates flanked by two older dates and one younger one. A statistical
calculation of the period boundaries for the whole material gives the ± 1 sigma
range 650–430 cal BC for the beginning and 140 cal BC – 140 cal AD for the end
of the period. The ranges are not quite clear, but here the impression is that the
floruit of Morby Ware fits within the traditional Pre-Roman Iron Age dating of
500–1 BC. With a calculation of this type, the result is naturally dependent above
all on the number of dates available. As long as the number of dates is small, the
calculated period boundaries may shift considerably if just one or two dates are
added. Another factor that should be considered is the effect of calibration. In the
diagram showing the AMS-dated samples, the two oldest dates give a long period
of even probability; this illustrates the problem of calibration and chronological
interpretation of the Bronze Age – Iron Age transition. During the transition period
there is a long ‘plateau’ in the calibration curve, extending the probability of dates
around 500 BC to a period covering several hundred years of the Late Bronze Age
as well. What this means is that the seemingly old Finnish ‘Late Bronze Age’ dates
of ‘Pre-Roman’ pottery may be due to the problem of calibration (Asplund 2004).
This problem with calculating dates around 500 BC is a general one affecting all
research concerning this period – not only a problem of Finnish research.98 At the
other end of the period, the situation is quite different. Around the beginning of
the first century AD, no calibration problem exists; the calibration curve gives a
symmetrical normal distribution well adapted to chronological interpretations.

97
To the eight AMS-dates published by Edgren (1999b: Kuva 7) one more dating from a
shard (TYA 96:36) found at Riihivainio in Turku has been added. The result of 2275 ± 70
(Ua-11603), i.e. 520-150 cal BC, is in good agreement with the other dates. A further Pre-
Roman dating from crust 2150 ± 65 BP (Hela-779), i.e. 380-40 cal BC, is available from the
Huilu 2 settlement site in Lappi, the pottery finds of which mainly can be classified as
Morby Ware. The dating has been left out of the calculations above, as the dated striated
shard (KM 34021:710) is undecorated.
98
The same feature can, for example, be seen in the Danish Pre-Roman radiocarbon dated
material where the sum of probability distributions signifies a beginning of the period
in the Late Bronze Age (Vandkilde et al. 1996: Fig 23).

220
 Fig. 106. AMS-dates of Finnish Morby Ware and the sum of probability
distributions.

Radiocarbon dating is thus a suitable method for dating the end of the occurrence
of Morby Ware but other methods must be regarded as more pertinent for dating
phenomena around 500 BC.
One possibility is to look at existing contact dates involving Morby Ware and
typologically dated artefacts in closed contexts. As regards establishing the position
of Morby Ware in Finnish chronology, one such find is the Dåvits cemetery, which
provided a contact date where Morby type ceramics could be connected with a
necklace of the Bräcksta type (Meinander 1969: 35-40). These necklaces are dated
to the early Pre-Roman Iron Age (Stjernquist 1956; Lang 1996, 286; cf. Olsén 1934).
A number of other graves with Pre-Roman or Early Roman metal items together
with Morby Ware have also been excavated (Meinander 1969: 32-33; Edgren 1999c:
318). One interesting discovery is the Ulvila Peltomäki find, which is probably the
oldest Finnish find of a typologically datable metal object together with Morby
Ware. In this case, Morby-type pottery and a disk-shaped bronze ornament were
found in a low cairn. The cast bronze disk has been dated to Period VI of the Bronze
Age or the beginning of the Pre-Roman Iron Age; in Gotland, such disks occur
in early Pre-Roman contexts (Tuovinen 1980: 189; Salo 1981: 96, 199, 263-264, 314;
1984a: 188). The Morby type pottery was interpreted as belonging to a culture layer

221
older than or contemporary with the cairn. A similar date is available also from
the Ilmandu cemetery in Estonia where Morby Ware was found together with a
temple ornament with spoon-shaped ends and a spiral centre (Lang 1995a). From
the point of view of the problematic early radiocarbon dates of Morby Ware, it is
interesting to note that no evident Late Bronze Age contact dates are available. This
supports the possibility that the old dates are the result of poor source materials
and calibration problems rather than factual proof of an early start of the period of
Morby Ware. This does not mean that the dates have to be squeezed exactly within
the 500 cal BC limit, but the importance of the Late Bronze Age dates should not be
overestimated.99
The question of the chronological extension of Morby Ware into the Early
Roman Iron Age is (in principle) somewhat easier to deal with – both in the case of
radiocarbon dating, as explained above, and regarding contact finds, since Roman
period cemeteries give better cross-dating possibilities. Salo (1968: 175-178) has
distinguished three types of Early Roman pottery in Finland. These are 1) Morby
Ware, 2) undecorated urns, and 3) small concave-convex or double-cone formed
vessels. Salo has identified ceramics from Järnvik in Pohja and Penttala in Nakkila
as Morby Ware (Salo 1968: 175, T. 9:5,6,8,9, T. 41:9; cf. 1970: 112). To these one
could also add the Morby Ware found in the Paimio Spurila cemetery A, with the
reservation that the pottery was not found in a definite grave context. All of these
cemeteries are from the turn of the Pre-Roman and Early Roman Iron Age, or (in
the Paimio case) at least contain some material of this age. This could mark the end
of use of this type of ceramics, at least in its most typical form. The Late Roman Iron
Age occurrence of Morby Ware as suggested by Carpelan & Uino (2003) remains
unclear.100
The urn-type distinguished by Salo is represented by vessels with concave or
slightly S-formed profile, striated or rusticated surface, and usually no decoration.
The type is known from cemeteries in Laitila and Turku (Salo 1968: 176). The vessel

99
The possibility of Morby Ware occurring during the Nordic Bronze Age Period VI is
in principle still possible. This could be confirmed if obvious Period IV artefacts were
found together with Morby Ware. Such finds do not appear in Finland, which might
be due to the sparsity of Late Bronze Age metal finds, but in the Estonian Late Bronze
Age cemeteries there might be at least a good potential of the occurrence of such
combinations.
100
With regard to late occurrences of epineolithic pottery it may be noted that Ella Kivikoski
(1973: 40, Tafel 23:196) has regarded coarse pit-decorated pottery from Ketohaka and
Ketomäki in Salo (Uskela) as the youngest occurrence of the “epineolithic” ware, dated
according to grave goods to the Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period. As the
pottery shown by Kivikoski (1973: Tafel 23: 196) is clearly Bronze Age pottery related
to the Paimio type, the dating is questionable. Probably the pottery was mixed with the
grave structures due to an older settlement at the same site.

222
form of the third type resembles the small Lusatian-type vessels of the Late Bronze
Age, but these pots are coarse and the surface is striated. This type of pot is known
only from Kärsämäki in Turku and Koskenhaka in Piikkiö (Salo 1968: 177, T. 31:7,
T. 33:5). A somewhat similar vessel type seems to be present in Estonian Roman
Period cemeteries (e.g. Laul 1962: 32, Tahvel IV:1). Also in Estonia carinate vessels
of the Early Iron Age are, however, more rare than during the Late Bronze Age
(Lang 1991: 52-53 Joon. 3; Joon 8). Such pots (without exact parallells for the two
Finnish finds) occur among the Nurmsi-style pottery as well as the (slightly later)
Salnieki-style ceramics (Lang 2007b: 135-136).
Besides the finds of typical Morby Ware in Early Roman Iron Age contexts, the
occurrence of undecorated striated pottery (probably related to Morby Ware) is
also interesting. This problem can only be briefly elucidated here, but it could be
pointed out that within the group of “undecorated urns” there may occur vessels
reminiscent of Morby Ware, although undecorated. This could suggest a final
stage of Morby-related ceramics where the form and surface treatment of the pot
is similar to Morby Ware, while the typical ornamentation has disappeared. This
issue is, however, more complex, as undecorated striated pottery probably already
occurred during the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age, like in Estonia
(cf. Lang 2006a). One example of such pottery has been discussed by Carpelan
& Uino (2003) in connection with finds including 6th century ornaments and the
remains of two striated vessels from the island Tytärsaari in the Gulf of Finland. One
of the vessels (KM 5424:1) is rather well preserved, allowing a detailed description
(Hackman 1910: Fig. 7; Kivikoski 1973: Abb. 392; Carpelan & Uino 2003: Fig. 5).
The temper is coarse and the profile of the upper part is slightly S-shaped. Striation
is mainly vertical on the lower part and horizontal on the upper part. The rim is
narrowed and smoothed, and the pot lacks ornamentation. The fragments of the
other pot have been regarded as belonging to a vessel of essentially the same type.
Carpelan and Uino (2003: 81-83) have interpreted the vessels as Estonian or Finnish
Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age pottery, which in Finland is represented by the
Paimio Ware and Morby Ware. This interpretation would require some comments
with regard to the definition of these pottery types, taking into consideration that
an important feature of the Finnish types referred to is that they are decorated. If
decoration does not occur, it is questionable whether it is possible to speak about
Paimio Ware or Morby Ware.
Instead of comparing the Tytärsaari pot with these types one could consider
undecorated striated vessels of a, so far, indistinct date. A fairly good parallel to
the Tytärsaari pot is a find from Pahka Pahamäki in Lieto, southwestern Finland.
Although smaller and with a more distinctively S-shaped profile, here one can find
most of the essential features of the Tytärsaari pot – the type of striation, the lack

223
of ornamentation as well as the narrowed and smoothed rim (Fig. 107). The pot
was found close to a cremation cemetery, but unfortunately not in a closed context.
This part of the cemetery is dated to the 4th century or around 400 AD at the latest
(Luoto 1988: 112-113). The dating is further complicated by the fact that other parts
of the Iron Age cemetery contained striated pottery interpreted as dating to the
Bronze Age (Luoto 1988: 103). The remains of the pot in question were found just
a couple of metres apart from the Late Roman Iron Age finds dating this part of
the cemetery – a few shards of similar striated pottery (TYA 219:79, 83) were in fact
found in the same grid square and layer as the Late Roman artefacts.
There are in principle three ways of approaching the question of the date of
the Pahamäki pot – one according to the closeness to the cemetery, suggesting a
Late Roman Iron Age dating, a second related to the features of the pot itself and,
thirdly, the possibility of
archaeometric dating. In
the absence of decoration,
the form of the rim could
be important, as typical
Morby Ware has a thick
cornered rim, while both
the Pahamäki pot and
the Tytärsaari pot have a
narrowed and smoothed
rim, a shape more re­
miniscent of Bronze Age
Fig. 107. Striated undecorated pot (TYA 219:23) from rim types (cf. Reisborg
Pahka Pahamäki in Lieto. 1989). This could suggest a
comparably early date for
the pots. The matter is, however, still much more complex. An attempt to date the
Pahka Pahamäki pot by means of termoluminiscence dating gave the result 1850 ±
250 BP (Hel-TL04085), i.e. something like 90 BC - 410 AD (ca. 160 AD being the most
probable date). This result does not fully correlate with the Late Roman Iron Age
date of the cemetery (although this is within the error margin), but still suggests
the use of undecorated striated pottery at the end of the period of typical Morby
Ware. Accordingly the Tytärsaari pots could also belong to the late Pre-Roman Iron
Age or the Roman Iron Age, rather than the Bronze Age. The point being made by
Carpelan & Uino (2003), according to which the Tytärsaari pots must represent a
different context and timeframe than the Migration Period ornaments found in the
vicinity thus is probably right, although the type of the pots and the chronological
perception may not be as evident as it at first may have seemed. What is most

224
important to stress, however, is the importance of further archaeometric dating of
such undecorated striated vessels, in order to work out a proper chronology.101

5.2.3.5. Morby­related ceramics in Estonia and Latvia

In Estonia Morby type pottery is referred to as pottery of Ilmandu style. The area
of the villages of Rannamõisa and Ilmandu near Tallinn in northern Estonia is
especially interesting: here are found Pre-Roman ceramics of the same type as in
southwestern Finland. There is one early find from a settlement site at Rannamõisa
(Lang 1996, Joon 13:1; cf. Meinander 1969: 50) in the collection in Tallinn, bearing a
close resemblance to Morby Ware, and reconstructed vessels from cemetery III in
Ilmandu (Lang 1995a; cf. 2006a: Fig. 5) look as though they could equally well have
been found north of the Gulf of Finland. The Ilmandu samples are particularly
similar: they have the same vessel form, the striated surface, the decoration of the
rim and the characteristic rhythm of the decoration pattern typical of Morby Ware.
The Iru hill-fort, in the same area of northern Estonia, has also yielded examples
of ceramics (Äyräpää 1951: Fig. 13:1; Meinander 1969: 49; Lang 1996: Tahvel V:3,5)
with a form and decoration resembling that of Morby Ware. Similar ceramics
have been identified at the fortified settlements Asva on Saarenmaa and Alatskivi
in eastern Estonia (Lang 2006a: 127). Furthermore, fragments of one pot (SM

101
The whole problem of these undecorated striated pots is intriguing. One further
similarity between the pots seems to be the light orange or reddish colour of both the
Pahka Pahamäki pot and (according to the find catalogue) the Tytärsaari pot. This is
unusual for typical Morby Ware. The only find (from within the study area at least) with
a similar colour is the Morby-like ceramics (e.g. TYA 105:308, 315) from Rikala in Halikko,
which has been interpreted as possibly secondarily burned. These fragments belong to
a decorated pot with a thick cornered rim, which is different from the undecorated pots
discussed above. The only additional feature of the Rikala ceramics, maybe somewhat
different from typical Morby Ware, is the strong inner surface striation. In principle this
type of finish is well-known in connection with Morby Ware (e.g. Meinander 1969: 42),
but the impression is that there is a lot of variation related to this feature. A coarse inner
surface striation also occurs in the Pahka Pahamäki pot. These scattered thoughts are so
far merely confusing, but demonstrate some features that should be considered when
looking into problems of Morby Ware and related striated ware. In addition to other
characteristcs discussed above, important features thus may be the lack of decoration,
inner striation as well as reddish colour, maybe due to a different firing technique
or a special use of some striated pots in connection with fire. What this special use
could have been is unclear. What could be pointed out, however, is that in two cases
– Pahamäki and Rikala – the pots have been found in connection with Iron Age AD
cremation cemeteries. At Tytärsaari this does not seem to be the case, regardless of the
Iron Age ornaments found. Furthermore (in all three cases) the pots are not present as
scattered fragments, but as accumulations of sherds, making possible the reconstruction
of big parts of the vessels. This probably means that whole pots have been deposited at
the sites.

225
7437:255) from the Liiva-Putla cemetery on the island Saaremaa in Estonia seem to
resemble Morby Ware; the surface is rough, ornaments occur on top of the rim and
the ornaments on the surface are placed on the shoulder in groups of three. Other
examples can be mentioned as well; for example, a find from Muuksi (Vassar 1938:
Abb. 17:4-5) has been considered as representing a type of ceramics close to Morby
Ware (Salo 1968: 175-176), as well as ceramics found in cemetery contexts at Poanse
in western Estonia and Uuri Klaukse in northern Estonia (Lang 2006a: 127). More
lately published finds of pottery from Tõugu, Tandemägi and Palmse (Lang 2000a:
Joon. 44, 48 and 73; 2000b: Joon. 5) should also be taken to account when evaluating
the distribution of Morby-related pottery.
The interesting Ilmandu material altogether consists of a dozen pots of uniform
type. According to Lang (1995a: 432-433; cf. 2006a: 127), the vessel surfaces are either
slightly striated or smoothed, and the pots are decorated with stamp impressions
of various size and shape. The impressions are usually situated both on the rim
and on the shoulder of the vessel. Lang also mentions that the impressions on
the shoulder occur in one or two rows and as a rule in separate groups. In the
first publication of the Ilmandu finds, parallels were identified from a stone-cist
grave in Loona on the island of Saaremaa as well as ceramics from the grave of
Uuri Klaukse and the settlement site of Rannamõisa. Later, other parallels were
added (Lang 2006a). In the Loona case at least one of the best preserved pots (AI
4210:1351) has a smooth surface on the preserved upper part, the main similarity
with Morby Ware thus being the grouping of the decoration. Both the Uuri Klaukse
pot and the Rannamõisa pot (Lang 1996: Joon 9:8), on the other hand, have the
typical wall profile, striation and decoration on the rim and shoulder, but in the
reconstructions the decoration pattern is drawn as a continuous horizontal zone,
without the decoration rhythm typical of Morby Ware.
The dating of the Ilmandu cemetery is of interest with regard to the dating of
the ceramics. Lang’s (1995a: 434) suggestion is that the foundation of the tarand
grave at Ilmandu can probably be dated to the early Pre-Roman Iron Age. The
only metal find providing such an early dating is a temple ornament with spoon-
shaped ends and a spiral centre – in fact found together with one of the clay vessels.
These temple ornaments were earlier dated to the first and the second centuries
AD (cf. Lõugas 1991), but during the 1990’s they were dated to the Late Bronze
Age and early Pre-Roman Iron Age (Lang 1990; 1995a: 433; 1996: 283-284), which
is in accordance with their parallels in Europe. Of importance for the dating of the
Ilmandu grave is also considered to be the absence of cord- and comb-decorated
pottery, ‘shepherds-crook’ pins made of iron and bronze, and bracelets, which
are typical finds of the late Pre-Roman and Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries in
northern and western Estonia (Lang 1995a: 433). Other find contexts containing

226
Ilmandu type pottery support such a dating, i.e. the final Bronze Age and early
Pre-Roman Iron Age, while single examples may belong to the late Pre-Roman Iron
Age (Lang 2006a: 127).
With regard to the development of pottery of the Ilmandu style, Lang (2006a:
127) has suggested “parallel developments” on both sides of the Gulf of Finland,
the Estonian Late Bronze Age Asva style developing into Ilmandu style and the
Paimio type pottery into Morby Ware.102 The relationship between the Asva style
and the Paimio type pottery as well as that of the Ilmandu style and Morby Ware is
not explained more closely by Lang. The Asva style, as interpreted by Lang (2006a:
124-126), is problematic as it actually contains two groups: coarse-grained and fine-
grained, the latter of which comparable to the Lusatian culture influenced Baltic
pottery discussed above. It is only the coarse-grained, pit-decorated Asva pottery
that is close to the Paimio type pottery of southwestern Finland. There is also a
third Bronze Age pottery style of Estonia – Lüganuse style – which has so far not
been distinguished as a different type in Finland. Also this type of pottery is pit-
decorated. One shard resembling this style found at the Toispuolojannummi site in
Paimio (KM 9390:134; Meinander 1954b: Tafel 24: e) has been pointed out by Lang
(2006a: 126). If Lüganuse type pottery occurred in Finland in bigger numbers, these
plainly pit-decorated shards would have probably been identified as Paimio type
pottery. For the (Late) Bronze Age we can distinguish clear resemblances between
pottery in southwestern Finland and Estonia, albeit on a general level. On both
sides of the Gulf of Finland coarse, pit-decorated and often striated pottery (Asva /
Lüganuse / Paimio) occur, as well as finegrained, often smoothed pottery of general
Baltic appearance (Asva / Lusatian influenced Ware). The similarities between the
Pre-Roman Ilmandu style and Morby Ware, on the other hand, seem more specific.
For at least part of the Ilmandu style pottery found in northern Estonia one could
actually use the classification Morby Ware as well. The parallel Late Bronze Age
/ Pre Roman Iron Age development of pottery styles on both sides of the Gulf of
Finland suggested by Lang (2006a) is a good conception; within this development
one could, however, underline the more definite relationship between Ilmandu
style and Morby Ware. The similarity of pottery styles may be due to increased
contacts, which during the late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Early Roman Iron Age
become apparent in other materials as well.

102
Other potter styles of importance for the development of Morby Ware have also
been suggested. For example Lavento (2001: 117) has suggested that textile ceramics,
especially the Sarsa type, typical of the inland of Finland, in addition to the Estonian
Asva ceramics, may have strongly influenced the development of Morby Ware. The
similarities between Morby Ware pottery and the Asva pottery has sometimes been
stressed a little too much, for example when the styles have been equalized (Künnap &
Lang 2000). This is somewhat confusing, and may relate to Ilmandu style pottery found
at Asva.

227
 Ceramics similar to Morby Ware and the Ilmandu style have also been found
at a few Latvian sites. One example of a vessel with the decoration rhythm typical
of Morby Ware comes from the Dignaja site (Cimermane 1980: Ris. 3:4; 1985: Ris.
4:2; Vasks 1991: Tablica XVI:4; cf. Šnore 1935: 16. att.). Possibly some other vessel
fragments from Dignaja can also be compared with the above-mentioned one (cf.
Cimermane 1985: Ris. 4:1,3,4,5,18). The Dignaja site was in use during several
periods from the first century BC to the 13th century AD; the older finds have
been compared with finds from the Asva site in Estonia (Šnore 1935; Cimermane
1985). Also in some other examples of striated ceramics from Latvia published by
Vasks (1991: Ris. 5:10-11, Tablica XIV:1,3-5) a vessel form and decoration pattern
reminiscent of that of Morby Ware can be observed.

5.2.3.6. Morby-related ceramics in Sweden

A good summary (or simplification) of the main Late Bronze Age pottery provinces
in the northern Baltic region – the western and the eastern – has been given by
Jaanusson (1985: 39; cf. 1981). Within this coarse division the western pottery is
characterized by an abundance of rusticated ware and a rarity of decorated vessels.
Eastern pottery is distinguished by a large proportion of striated ware, mostly
associated with varying quantities of textile-impressed ware. The eastern pottery is
most often decorated, usually with horizontal rows of imprints forming the main
motif. The boundary of these provinces runs along the Baltic, whereas some coastal
and archipelago areas show a variegated amount of mixture of western and eastern
elements. This is the case in the Mälaren area in eastern Sweden, where Late Bronze
Age and Early Iron Age pottery of East-Baltic types occur at some settlement sites
(Ambrosiani 1958; 1959; Schönbäck 1959; Jaanusson 1981; 1993, 12; Reisborg 1989;
Eriksson 2005: 371-372).
The most important of the sites studied in Sweden is Darsgärde, excavated by
Björn Ambrosiani in 1957-60. The most interesting part of the complex is the oldest
layer, dated to the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age, although there are
eastern influences in the material from the first centuries AD as well. The ceramics
from the lower layer at Darsgärde have been studied in detail by Reisborg (1989).
Most of the material (61 %) consists of shards with a striated surface, but fragments
of textile-impressed and polished vessels also occur. Ornamentation (pits or oblong
pits in horizontal rows, nail- and finger-impressions, twisted cord impressions,
comb stamp impressions, pin impressions, short vertical lines, ring marks as
well as other types of lines and impressions) is found on at least 72 % of the 162
identified vessels. The ornaments are concentrated on the shoulder and the upper
part of the vessels. Reisborg (1989) has tried to divide the Darsgärde material into

228
two hypothetical groups on the basis of the ornamentation – one Late Bronze Age
group and one Pre-Roman Iron Age group. The hypothesis was tested by examining
the clay material, the vessel form and the form of the rim. Some differences can be
noticed when the two groups are compared with respect to material and form. The
most interesting examination is the one where different rim forms are compared; it
seems quite obvious that cornered rims occur more frequently in the hypothetically
younger group (Reisborg 1989: 98-100). This is a small but important observation,
possibly useful for chronological interpretations elsewhere as well.
The best parallels to the Darsgärde material were found according to Ambrosiani
(1959: 120-121) in the Finnish epineolithic pottery from the Late Bronze Age and
the Early Iron Age described by Meinander (1954b). Special importance was for
some reason given to a few shards found at the Hautvuori hill-fort in Laitila,
southwestern Finland (Ambrosiani 1959: 122). Other sites of importance, according
to Ambrosiani (1959: 125-126), were Hedningahällan in Uppland and the Estonian
fortified settlements of Asva and Iru. Reisborg (1989: 102) stresses the similarity
with ceramics on the Åland Islands, mainland Finland and Estonia, but also with
pottery in Karelia and the Ladoga and Leningrad areas in Russia. The significance of
the three latter areas, however, remains indistinct. In a few shards of the Darsgärde
material, the Morby type of impressions can be seen; some are quite typical (SHM
2578:549, 729), some very small (SHM 25878:440) and some not quite clear (SHM
25878:315, 698). The vessels with decoration related to Morby Ware are grouped
together in Reisborg’s typology as vessels with "Länglische Grübchen in horizontalen
Reihen" (Reisborg 1989: 88). The decoration pattern – the ‘rhythm’ – of at least one
vessel with other impressions could also be linked to Morby Ware (SHM 25878:745,
788, 790). In this case the vessel has groups of four impressions in two horizontal
lines. The typical feature of decoration of the top of the rim as in Finnish Pre-Roman
ceramics, however, does not occur in the Darsgärde material.
Ceramics with striated surface have also been found at Broby in Uppland. In this
case the finds are a minority among the material and in comparison to the Darsgärde
material are characterised by a lack of pit ornaments; this has been suggested to
indicate local production under eastern influences (Schönbäck 1959: 100). One
vessel with the same surface treatment has been found in a grave at the Vårfrukyrka
cemetery in Skälby, Uppland, dated to the Late Bronze Age (Ambrosiani 1959: 124;
Schönbäck 1959: 100-104). Ambrosiani also mentions Early Iron Age cemeteries – for
example, Alunda in Uppland – with ceramics of the same kind (Ambrosiani 1959:
124). Furthermore, striated pottery is present in small quantities in the material from
Hallunda (Jaanusson 1981).
These materials from eastern Sweden can be considered proof of contacts
between the eastern and western shores of the northern part of the Baltic during the
Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. Reisborg (1989: 102-104) sees the common

229
types of ceramics as a reflection of common traditions during a period of change
of climatic conditions and economy. As the area belongs to a zone of slash-and-
burn cultivation, foraging and especially marine hunting played an important
role. According to Reisborg, the marine-oriented economy and settlement on the
seashore was further strengthened during a period of lower summer temperatures
around 500-100 BC. This environmental deterministic explanation is not especially
convincing. From a Finnish perspective, and the material of the Kemiönsaari
study in particular, evidence of an increased importance of marine resources or re-
organization of settlement towards the coast is hard to see. On the contrary, the
long-term tendency seems to be towards increased agriculture, with settlement
location promoting cultivation. This development is even more obvious in the case
of Estonia. This does not exclude foraging and marine hunting, but it is as likely that
the contacts reflected in the common pottery styles are due to other reasons. The
interesting question whether the Darsgärde site should be viewed as the result of
continuous local development due to a similar economy and overseas contacts, or as
a feature due to immigration cannot, however, be answered. Even without explaining
the reasons for the similarities, the contacts revealed by the Swedish finds can still
be underlined. Already Ambrosiani (1959: 127) put forward a hypothesis on the
basis of the finds, according to which southwestern Finland, Estonia and Roslagen
(the eastern Swedish area) could be distinguished as a North-Baltic ceramic group
during the Late Bronze Age. This group should still be considered in connection
with the Early Metal Period ceramics in the Baltic area.
In addition to the presentations of the Estonian striated pottery groups (e.g. Lang
2006a), the most thorough evaluation of the East Baltic material has been carried
out by Vasks (1991) from a Latvian point of view. 103 As a general summary, Vasks
has concluded that the whole area of striated pottery in the first millennium BC can

103
Regarding Latvia, Vasks (1991: 194) has concluded that the striated pottery appeared on
the basis of local traditions, originating from the Neolithic Narva Culture. Vasks (1991)
has distinguished two partly overlapping periods in the development. During the
first period, from about 1000-1 BC, two groups – the western and the eastern – existed
in present-day Latvia. Pottery with a striated surface is characteristic of the western
group, as are S-shaped vessel profiles and the co-occurrence of early rusticated pottery.
Striated pottery is also characteristic of the eastern group, but during the same time
smooth-walled and textile-impressed vessels occur. The pottery of the northeastern part
of Latvia had some conformity with pottery in Estonia, while the western group seems
to have had its contacts with the southeastern Baltic area (Vasks 1991: 195). Striated
pottery is, for example, present in Lithuania. The earliest occurrences are, according
to Elena Grigalavičienė (1995: 275), from the later half of the Early Bronze Age. The
second important period in the development began in the last centuries of the first
millennium BC. During this period striated pottery was replaced by smooth-walled
ware in western Latvia, while old traditions of pottery prevailed in central Latvia. In
the northeastern part of the country striated pottery was replaced by textile-impressed
ware in the first centuries AD. To these three cultural regions Vasks (1995) has since
added the southeastern part of Latvia as a fourth cultural area.

230
be considered as a more or less united historical-cultural region. He distinguishes
three territorial groups, each with their own variants of Early Metal Period pottery
and also differing burial customs (Vasks 1991; 1994a: 121). The groups are 1) the
northern group (the territory of Estonia and northern Latvia), 2) the western
group (the territory of western Lithuania and western Latvia), and 3) the southern
group (the territory of eastern Latvia, eastern Lithuania and western Belarus).
Considering the Finnish and Swedish striated pottery it is evident that the northern
group in the division by Vasks must be extended. Apart from the contacts indicated
by the occurrence of common pottery types, the northern group – including parts
of eastern Sweden – appears as a distinctive cultural area also with regard to the
spread of cemeteries related to the Estonian tarand graves as well as grave finds
of Estonian or generally East Baltic character (e.g. Ambrosiani 1985; Ligi 1993: 14;
Feldt 2005: 127-132, 304-309).

5.3. Other material culture aspects

5.3.1. Pre-Roman bronze finds

In Finland metal finds from the Pre-Roman Iron Age occur sparsely. This is true
concerning iron as well as bronze finds, which are (if considering the main part of
the period) mainly represented by ring ornaments such as neckrings and bracelets
– and there are not many of those either. Another aspect of the occurrence of
bronze objects in the very beginning of the Pre-Roman Iron Age is the continuity
from Period VI of ‘Bronze Age’ types of objects. One example is the disk-shaped
bronze ornament from Ulvila Peltomäki, discussed above in connection with the
dating of Morby Ware. In a similar way, some of the metal axe types of the Bronze
Age, like the Mälar (or Akozino-Mälar) type axe (e.g. Meinander 1985; Kuz’minych
1996; Lavento 2001: 123; Bolin 2004; 2005: 220-223, 226) as well as the Maaninka (e.g.
Miettinen 1994b: 5-9; Lavento 2001: 122) and Ananyino (e.g. Lavento 2001: 122-123;
Patrushev 2004) type axes, have been in use during Period VI of the Bronze Age
– maybe even in the beginning of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. It has been suggested
that it was specifically the form of the Mälar type axe that was copied into iron
(Meinander 1954b: 32; Salo 1968: 159-161; 1984a: 192; 1984b: 91; Kuz’minych 1996:
23) – either during the Late Bronze Age or in the Early Iron Age.
Objects more specifically representing the early Pre-Roman Iron Age are three
neckrings with flat ends of the Bräcksta-type from Panelia in Kiukainen (Meinander
1954b: 52-53, Tafel 15; Stjernquist 1956). In addition to these a couple of early Pre-
Roman necklaces – reminiscent of the Bräcksta and Bjärges types (Olsén 1934;
Stjernquist 1956) occur in the material from the Dåvits cemetery, already mentioned

231
above. At Dåvits one complete necklace as well as fragments of another necklace
with flat ends reminiscent of the Bräcksta-type have been found; the fragment,
however, is lacking ornaments. Furthermore, there is one undecorated necklace
with pointed ends, comparable to the Bjärges-type; a similar (undecorated) necklace
has been found at Borgmästars in Karjaa (Meinander 1969: Fig. 7). In addition to
these there is only one more necklace dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. This is a
ring with cone-shaped ends from the Pikkulinnanmäki cemetery in Porvoo, with
parallels in the East-Baltic area (Meinander 1969: 64-65; Edgren 1996b: 84, 88; cf.
Hirviluoto 1968: 17-18; 1985: 63).
One more find that could be mentioned in a discussion on early forms of neckrings
is a necklace (KM 18251:835) from the Liekolankatu site in Vammala, found in a grave
below ground, situated at a Stone Age and Early Metal Period settlement site. Three
graves were distinguished, two having an incomplete inner construction made of
stone slabs along their sidewalls; the necklace was found in the corner of one of
them (Salo 2004b: 156). Early Metal Period activities are indicated by two fireplaces,
radiocarbon dated to 1820 ± 100 (Hel-192), i.e. 1-430 AD, and 2290 ± 110 (Hel-193), i.e.
800-50 BC; the grave containing the necklace was situated above the second of these
fireplaces (Jungner 1979: 32). The necklace is made of a flat, undecorated bronze
band of 5-6 mm width, and ends in two simple hooks (Fig. 108). Initially, it was
dated to 400-600 AD (Jungner 1979: 32), but it has also been suggested that it is an

Fig. 108. Necklace (KM 18251:835) from Liekolankatu in Vammala. Photo by

Leena Tomanterä / Conservation Laboratory, National Museum of Finland.

232
Early Metal Period artefact. It has, for example, been briefly commented on by Luoto
(1984: 157), who at first suggested a Late Bronze Age dating. Later, Luoto (2004: 79)
compared it with Late Migration Period necklaces from Gotland (Nerman 1935: 71,
Taf. 39: 393-395). Furthermore, Salo (2004b: 155-156) has (without presenting any
particular parallels) regarded a Pre-Roman Iron Age or (more likely) Roman Iron
Age dating as the most suitable.
The difficulty of dating is due to the very simple form of the necklace. If
focussing on the closing mechanism, the necklace could represent a form of so-
called Wendelringe of the Late Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age. Among these
rings simple closing hooks occur much more frequently than in the case of
Migration Period necklaces. Otherwise the simple form of the Liekolankatu ring is
not common among Wendelringe. In rare cases plain, undecorated rings may occur
as in the case of two necklaces with four-sided cross-section occurring in the Period
VI offering from Hellinge in Halsted, Denmark (Broholm 1946: 245, 251). An even
better parallel is found in horizon e of the typological development of Wendelringe
in Denmark, where there occurs a type of flat, band-formed necklace with closing
hooks – flacher bandförmiger Halsring mit Hakenenden (Ge.) (Heynowski 2000: 77, Abb.
9:1). This is a late variant, lacking most of the typical Wendelringe features, but of a
form comparable with the Liekolankatu necklace. Horizon e has been suggested as
having an absolute chronological dating of 550-500 BC (corresponding to Hallstatt
D2), but, with reference to Nordic chronologies, it may also be synchronized with
the very beginning of the Iron Age (Heynowski 2000: 88, 210-213). This places the
Liekolankatu necklace in the late Period VI or the early Pre-Roman Iron Age.
At Dåvits a few fragments of bracelets also occur. These simple forms, like
other finds of simple undecorated bracelets in Finland104, cannot be dated on the

104
Several types of simple Early Roman Iron Age bracelets have been classified by Salo
(1968: 104-106). More lately simple bronze bracelets have, for example, been discussed
in connection with finds from Pahka Pahamäki in Lieto (TYA 187:61; Luoto 1993: 377,
Kuva 1) and Hiukkasaari in Vammala (TYA 178:359; Luoto 2004: 29, Kuva 17). In both
cases the possibility of an Early Iron Age dating was considered, but the final conclusion
was that the bracelets are probably younger. Furthermore, two simple bronze bracelets
have been discussed in connection with the Tervakangas site in Raahe. The site has
been dated mainly to the Roman Iron Age (Forss & Jarva 1992). Another example is a
simple undecorated bronze bracelet found in a cairn at the Frönäsudden site in Närpiö
together with an iron bracelet. The find has been dated according to Finnish and East-
Baltic parallels to the Pre-Roman or the Early Roman Iron Age; the elevation of the
cairn suggests a dating to the end of the first millennium BC or to the first century
AD (Miettinen 1980: 93; 1986; 1994a: 159). The bronze bracelet has a strange form as
one end is pointed, the other blunt – this could be a fragment of a larger ring, possibly
a necklace, reused as a bracelet. Further examples of simple bronze rings in possible
Early Iron Age contexts are two pieces of bronze rings found in a cairn at Rimossbacken
in Petolahti, the construction of which is similar to that of the Frönäsudden cairn. The
Petolahti cairn can be dated, according to elevation, to the 6th or 5th century BC at the
earliest (Miettinen 1994a: 159).

233
basis of their shape alone. One decorated sample from Karjalohja, the decoration
reminiscent of the necklaces discussed above, has been presented by Meinander
(1969: Fig 8; cf. Salo 1968: 83; T. 9:1) in connection with the Dåvits finds. Comparable
line-ornamented bracelets with pointed ends have been found at Koukkela in
Laitila (Salo 1968: 85, 105; T. 47:1; 1984a: 193) and Salisuonmäki in Rauma (Salo
1968: 88-89, 105, T. 47:6; 1984a: 193). Such bracelets – maybe some other simple but
undecorated rings as well – may have a quite early dating, ranging from the Pre-
Roman Iron Age to the Early Roman Iron Age.
Another type of bracelet, which has more lately re-entered the discussion on
Pre-Roman bronze objects, is the serial bracelet, previously often dated to the Early
Roman Iron Age (cf. Edgren 1999b: 329; Raike & Haimila 2003: 25). A probability
of a Pre-Roman dating for Finnish serial bracelets was originally suggested by
Meinander (1969: 64-65). The new interest in these bracelets is, at least partly,
a result of the excavations at the Korvala cemetery in Sauvo, which (as already
mentioned above) seems to predate the period of occurrence of Early Roman Iron
Age fibulae. The Korvala material is at yet mostly unpublished, but contains ring
ornaments like serial bracelets (Schauman-Lönnqvist 2006: 51). Other important
cemetery sites where serial bracelets have been found are Pikkulinnanmäki in
Porvoo, where two complete sets occur together with some separate rings, as well as
Kroggårdsmalmen in Karjaa containing one complete set and a few separate rings;
separate pieces furthermore occur at the Rönni site in Pälkäne (Hirviluoto 1968:
19-21; Kivikoski 1973: 22, Abb. 32). A single piece of a serial bracelet has also been
found in a cairn at Sammallahdenmäki in Lappi (Raike & Haimila 2003: 24-25).105
All of these sites are potential early sites, quite likely datable to the Pre-Roman Iron
Age. With regard to the chronology of serial bracelets, it has been pointed out that
a fragmentary serial bracelet occurs together with a Roman Iron Age eye fibula at
the Herrankartano site in Paimio (Edgren 1996b: 88; 1999b: 329). This is true, but
on the other hand, this is far from a closed context. The fibula and the bracelet are
the only finds from the site, probably interpretable as the remains of an Early Iron
Age cemetery. Whether the objects belong together is, however, uncertain. As no
cemetery structures have been identified, the context of the finds is comparable to
that of two stray finds. The objects were in fact found 55 metres apart (Leppäaho
1934: 70).

105
The possibility of one stray find from Rukkijoki in Paimio being a fragment of a serial
bracelet has also been considered; this idea was, however, rejected after an analysis of
the metal composition, which did not match compositions regarded as characteristic of
the Early Iron Age (Luoto 1993).

234
 The Pre-Roman or potentially Pre-Roman bronze objects listed above illustrate
the existence of such objects.106 At the same time the small number of items makes
it unclear how big a growth in the amount of bronze ornaments in cemeteries can
be noticed during the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Finland. An increase towards the end
of the period could be expected with reference to other areas around the Baltic,
like Scandinavia or Estonia, where an increase can be observed during the late Pre-
Roman Iron Age. When looking at the bronze objects alone, it seems evident that
a few cemeteries containing grave goods in the coastal areas of Finland have their
roots in the Pre-Roman Iron Age.107 When discussing iron objects this interpretation
gains further confirmation. Still, with regard to bronze objects – ornaments in
particular – the increase of quantities of objects as well as an increase in object
forms happened later, during the first centuries AD.

5.3.2. Early iron objects and iron production

– Scandinavia and the East Baltic

Iron started to occur almost simultaneously in southern Scandinavia and in Europe

north of the Alps in general. The oldest dated piece of iron found in Denmark is
a fragment from an urn grave dated to Period III; from Period IV two typically
Nordic bronze razors with iron inlay, indicating a local knowledge of iron, have

106
The list is far from complete. The main issue here has been to cover the most usual
object types. Some more objects of other, rarer types could be added, such as a bronze
pincette (Hirviluoto 1968: Abb. 13) from the Pikkulinnanmäki cemetery, suggested by
Meinander (1969: 64-65) to date from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. Such pincettes have been
discussed in connection with a find from a tarand cemetery in Gärtuna in Östertälje,
Sweden, dated mainly to the early Pre-Roman Iron Age (Feldt 2005: 308-309). Another
type of find worth mentioning are a few shepherd’s crook pins made of bronze, briefly
referred to below in connection with the iron ones. One could also speculate whether
one spiral-ended bronze pin (KM 10232) found in Vehmaa could be younger than the
Late Bronze Age. Meinander (1954b: 50) has pointed out the possibility of such pins
still occurring during the beginning of the Iron Age. The context of the Vehmaa find is
problematic, but it is rather interesting that the pin was found in a stony area or stone
setting described as containing lots of red sandstone (Kivikoski 1937a: 59). The use of
red sandstone in grave constructions is a feature occurring during the Early Iron Age
(Miettinen 1986; 1994a: 159-161; Edgren 1999b: 318). Another spiral-ended bronze pin
(KM 19000:5385) likely to date from the Pre-Roman Iron Age has been found at the
Mahittula site in Raisio. Mahittula is a Middle and Late Iron Age cemetery, but the
material also contains older finds, like Morby Ware pottery.
107
The probablitity of some Finnish Early Iron Age cemeteries dating to the Pre-Roman
Iron Age has also been pointed out by Feldt (2005: 135). The cases mentioned by him are
Penttala, Koskenhaka, Pikkulinnanmäki, Kroggårdsmalmen, and Dåvits.

235
been found (Levinsen 1989: 442). During Period V iron appears in a number of urn
graves as well as in hoards, in the shape of pins, small knives and bracelets. Urn
graves with iron objects occur especially in southern Jutland and Funen, i.e. areas
related to the Early Iron Age Jastorf phase of Schleswig-Holstein (Levinsen 1984:
154; 1989: 442; Thrane 1994: Figure 10.15). During Bronze Age Periods IV and V,
weapons and tools of bronze – such as swords, spears, sickles, socketed axes or
socketed hammers – are known from Denmark, but after these periods this group
of objects disappears until the middle and late Pre-Roman Iron Age; it is not known
whether before this time such tools were made of bronze or iron (e.g. Levinsen
1989: 449). For example, the late 4th century BC Hjortspring boat find contained iron
swords, spearheads and wooden shafts for socketed axes (Rosenberg 1937: 40-47; cf.
Randsborg 1995). Several finds indicate that iron was locally produced in Denmark
during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. It seems that iron extraction developed around
500 BC, which is indicated by several Pre-Roman sites with finds of slag recorded
from all over Jutland (Nørbach 1999: 237-238). Classic sites are, for example, the
Bruneborg site in Jutland where slag and roasted bog iron has been found, and the
Frogstrup site where pits with charcoal and slag have been found; at both sites the
material is related to pottery from the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Levinsen 1989: 450-
451). The amount of this early production is difficult to estimate. Probably iron and
iron technology was introduced gradually, meaning that both the material and the
technology were known for centuries before they became dominant.
In central Sweden excavations during the 1980’s revealed new information
with regard to the earliest dates of iron working sites. Such sites in Uppland were
dated to the Late Bronze Age, and the early dates were supported by radiocarbon
dated sites in Södermanland and Östergötland (Hjärtner-Holdar 1989; 1993a: 167-
169; 1993b). These sites are linked to a Bronze Age environment, and on several
of them evidence of bronze casting has been found. The new settlement site data
also led to re-interpretations of some early iron and bi-metallic objects. One well-
known example is the socketed axe from Ocksarve on Gotland. It is made of iron,
but covered with a thin layer of bronze. This object is probably not an import, as
previously believed; bimetallic objects made of iron and bronze are well known
from the Lusatian culture, but in these, different parts of the objects are usually
made of different metals (Hjärtner-Holdar 1989: 146). Other Swedish objects
with an iron core overlaid with bronze are, for example, local types of Gotlandic
brooches from the Pre-Roman Iron Age. A Bronze Age bowl with iron supports
from Härevi in Uppland is also often mentioned, as is a bronze sword from Svärta in
Södermanland repaired with an iron rivet. In addition to these classic finds, several
others have been revealed. The number of Swedish iron or bi-metallic objects or

236
fragments discussed in Bronze Age contexts is in fact close to 200, more than a
fourth of which can be dated to period V or earlier (Hjärtner-Holdar 1993b).
In Poland, local iron production started to develop during the late Hallstatt phases,
i.e. the late Period V and Period VI of the Scandinavian Bronze Age (Jażdżewski
1965: 120). The early iron objects in Poland are numerous; already in the 1970’s 220
objects with a dating in the range of 700-400 BC were documented (Pleiner 1980:
388). Finds from the eastern part of the Baltic area are sparser. In Lithuania, the
earliest imported iron implements are from the middle of the first millennium BC
or around 300 BC and the earliest examples of iron technology (slag and discarded
iron items at settlement sites) from the final centuries BC (Grigalavičienė 1995: 261,
268; Steponaitis 2000: 60). The earliest iron extraction furnaces, dated to the 2nd
to 4th centuries AD, have been found at the Spietiņi settlement site (Peets 2003a:
79-80). In Latvia, finds related to developed Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
bronze casting have been found at the Brikuļi fortified settlement (Vasks 1994c),
but evidence of early iron metallurgy is missing. One iron extraction oven, with a
slag-pit outside, is known from the Latvian Early and Middle Iron Age settlement
site Jaunlīve. No direct dating is available, but a radiocarbon dating of 1610 ± 100
BP for a nearby charcoal pit, and the artefacts found, suggest a dating from the 3rd
to 5th centuries AD (Atgāzis 1994).
From Estonia there are a couple of iron objects probably datable to Period V or
VI – an iron awl from the Iru settlement (Lang 1995c: 55; Fig. 5:17) as well as a knife
and an awl from the fortified settlement Asva on Saarenmaa; similar awls dated to
Period VI or the early Pre-Roman Iron Age have been found from a few other sites
(Peets 2003a: 51). One early Pre-Roman site is the Jäbara A cemetery where an iron
knife, an iron bracelet, a La Tène sword and an iron awl were found, dated according
to accompanying bronze ornaments to the third quarter of the first millennium BC
(Schmiedehelm 1983: 31-35; Peets 2003a: 51; 2003b: 214). Evidence of Late Bronze
Age or Pre-Roman local iron working is, however, sparse. Beside slag lumps from
the above mentioned Iru and Asva sites, no proof of that early iron working has
been discovered; the earliest examples of iron working are from the end of the Pre-
Roman Period (Ligi 1993: 14) or the beginning of the Roman Iron Age (Peets 2003a;
2003b). Starting with the second century BC, iron ornaments, tools, and weapons
begin to occur in larger amounts in the graves. The period between 500 and 200 BC
in Estonia should be seen, according to Lang (1996), as a transition from the Bronze
Age to the Iron Age, not only with regard to the occurrence of iron, but in economic
terms in general. Iron extraction sites found, however, have been dated not earlier
than to the very end of the Pre-Roman Iron Age or first half of the first millennium
AD. The earliest ones, according to radiocarbon dates, are the sites at Tindimurru,

237
Puiato and Metsaküla (Peets 2003a: 51-62, Fig. 118; 2003b: 214-215). The first half of
the first millennium AD is the period when a rapid development of local smithery
took place in Estonia, which can be seen as a development of types of objects as
well as smithery techniques and the quality of raw materials (Peets 2003a: 232, 267;
2003b: 222).
According to Peets (2003a: 79), iron production in the north follow a certain
pattern, where (after the initial introduction of iron) the Early Iron Age – more
specifically the late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman Iron Age – seems to be the
period when iron technology developed and extraction became generally spread.
What the effect of the introduction or development of iron technology could have
been with regard to other changes detectable (from the point of view of this study)
especially in the Early Iron Age is not easily explained. It is, however, unlikely that
changes in settlement pattern or grave rituals could have been initially triggered
or affected by the coming of iron. Rather, the process of transition towards the Iron
Age should be understood as a dialectical process, involving several factors, maybe
including changes in the subsistence economy and climate but also in internal and
external relations. It is possible that iron played a role in the process, but it was
only one of many factors contributing to this period of change. One point with
regard to the introduction and development of iron technology is that it was a
long-term process. This process constituted first of all a general increase in the
number of objects made of iron, secondly a gradual increase in the range of objects
made of iron and the amount of iron produced. There was no sudden burst of iron
technology and use of iron, but the raw material slowly gained more and more
importance. In the archaeological material this can be seen as a gradual increase in
the indications of iron technology, from the first occurrence of iron objects to slag
and iron extraction ovens, and finally signs of larger-scale production. These stages,
representing the increased complexity of elements in the process of the introduction
of iron, originally described by Pleiner (1980; cf. Levinsen 1984: 158-159; 1989: 447-
449), can still be used to exemplify the spread of the new technology to northern
Europe. Single objects and a general knowledge of the technology spread quickly,
but there was a long delay before iron reached the level of organised production.

5.3.3. Early iron technology in Finland

It has been suggested that iron technology spread to both Finland and Estonia from
the west, i.e. from Sweden. The words for iron – rauta (Fi.) and raud (Est.) – seem to
be derived from a Germanic word (cf. Sw. röd, ‘red’) related to the colour of soils rich
in iron. The Finnish form of the word could in principle be a Baltic loan (the form

238
raudà occurring in Lithuania, for example) but the Baltic words do not specifically
contain the meaning of iron or ore (Itkonen & Joki 1976: 750-751; Häkkinen 2004:
1032-1033). With regard to the archaeological material the picture is also rather
complicated, as the oldest iron extraction furnaces and other traces of ancient iron
working have been found in the northern part of Finland (Kehusmaa 1972; Schulz
1986; Kotivuori 1996; cf. Peets 2003a: 76-79). This was an area influenced throughout
the Early Metal Period by eastern contacts. It is most likely that iron was introduced
to the northern and eastern parts of Finland along the same routes that had brought
bronze technology to the north (e.g. Mäkivuoti 1987: 59-63). There seems to be a
parallel situation if comparing the evidence of Late Bronze Age bronze technology
and Early Iron Age iron technology. The similarity lies in the fact that indicia of
bronze casting – indicated by the occurrence of casting moulds – as well as proof
of early iron extraction are more evident in the northern and eastern parts of the
country than on the coast.
Classic sites in the north are the slag containing Kemijärvi Neitilä settlement
site, dated on the basis of ceramics to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Kehusmaa 1972:
80-88), as well as the Kajaani Äkälänniemi extraction furnace, radiocarbon dated to
the 4th century BC (Schulz 1986).108 Later a couple of other important sites, similar
to that of Äkälänniemi, were revealed. At both the Riitakanranta and Kotijänkä
sites in Sierijärvi, a box-shaped extraction furnace made of stone slabs as well as
remains of a simple cupola oven have been excavated (Kotivuori 1996: 108-111).
The Riitakanranta furnaces have been radiocarbon dated to around the turn of
the last millennium BC and the first millennium AD; one dating from a nearby
settlement site suggests the date of about 200-400 AD. This is comparable to the
datings from the Kotijänkä site, which is about 2000 years old. An Early Iron Age
date has also been suggested for a rectangular iron extraction construction from
Kitulansuo in Ristiina (Lavento 1996; 1999; 2001: 127).109 Likewise in Russian Karelia,
east of Finland, the earliest signs of iron production – in the form of slag and iron

108
There has been some confusion concerning the radiocarbon samples from the
Äkälänniemi furnace. The conclusion, however, seems to be, that the dating 2220 ± 100
BP (Hel-2098) is related to the furnace and dates it to the Early Iron Age (Schulz 1999:
221).
109
The age of the Kitulansuo furnace is problematic as two radiocarbon dates indicate
a dating to the Merovingian Period or later. Lavento (2001: 127) has referred to the
possibility of contamination and still held a dating to the first half of the first millennium
AD more probable.

239
extraction furnaces – have been dated to the second half of the last millennium BC
or the first half of the first millennium AD (Kosmenko & Manjuhin 1999).110
In the southern and western part of Finland traces of early iron extraction are
more modest; finds of Early Iron Age extraction furnaces are almost lacking and
iron technology is usually indicated by slag alone. The dating of slag in settlement
site contexts is not always clear, but it may be noted that pieces of slag have been
found together with Morby Ware at Böle in Porvoo, Luistari in Eura and Koivumäki
in Nousiainen (Edgren 1993a: 156-158; 1999b: 326; cf. Meinander 1949: 102;
Hirviluoto 1985: 58; Salo 1995b; Lehtosalo-Hilander 2000: 109-113). This indicates
the presence of Early Iron Age – probably even Pre-Roman – iron technology in
southern Finland as well, but the forms of extraction and the scale of production
is so far impossible to figure out. The only coastal sites where unquestionable
remains of early iron extraction or forging have been found are Holsterbacken in
Maalahti and Pörnullbacken in Vöyri, both situated in Southern Ostrobothnia. At
Holsterbacken at least three pit-shaped iron extraction structures were identified
(Miettinen & Vuorela 1988: 50). The only radiocarbon dating available from the site
gave the result 1680 ± 110 (Hel-2549), i.e. 50-650 AD. As the probability ranges are
that wide, the site may belong to the Roman Period (cf. Rubensson 2002: 195), but
it could as well be younger. At Pörnullbacken the dating related to iron working
is more convincing, as the result 1900 ± 65 (Ua-9179), i.e. 50 BC – 320 AD, was
obtained from charcoal inside a structure interpreted as a forge (Rubensson 2002:
206-209; Herrgård & Holmblad 2005: 161). The structure itself is interesting as the
box-shaped form is reminiscent of the extraction furnaces discussed above. The
fact that iron extraction has been practised somewhere at the site is indicated by
slag, which according to metallurgical analyses derives from both extraction and
forging (Rubensson 2002: 208-209).
After the initial Early Iron Age period of iron production, evidence of local iron
extraction is still meager in Finland. The later development of iron technology is
not possible to discuss in detail here, but in general there seems to be a change

110
In addition to the cases above, Lavento (2001: 127) has mentioned the Rakanmäki site
in Tornio in the same context where he discusses early iron extraction furnaces. As the
reader may have the impression that the Rakanmäki site also contained a furnace, it
should be clarified that this is not the case. There is evidence of iron technology in
the form of slag and burned clay as well as one spade-shaped iron currency bar, but
no furnace remains (Mäkivuoti 1987: 62-64; 1988: 41). Also the dating may need a
comment. According to Lavento (2001: 127; cf. Mäkivuoti 1988: 44), the site can be dated
roughly to between 1 and 400 AD. This dating refers to the radiocarbon dates from the
site, while it has been given a dating from the 3rd to the 9th century on the basis of shore
displacement chronology and the artefacts found (Mäkivuoti 1987: 64). The spade-
shaped iron currency bar, for example, is of a type generally dated from the Migration
Period to the Viking Age (Hallinder & Haglund 1978: 33-34).

240
in the geographical distribution of indicia related to local iron production. Some
extraction sites now occur in more southern parts of the country while the evidence
from the north is sparser. In the area of Kainuu, for example, there seems to be a
break in iron extraction after the Äkälänniemi find. The next furnaces in the area
have been dated to the 10th century cal AD, after which iron production in the light
of radiocarbon-dates continued until the present (Lavento 2004a: 71).

5.3.4. Iron objects

One of the oldest Finnish iron finds is an Ananjino type knife from Kotijänkä in
Sierajärvi in northern Finland, dated on the basis of comparative eastern objects and
AMS-dated crust on pottery found next to it to the 8th to 5th centuries BC (Kotivuori
1996: 108-109). From the northern part of the country also a classical find of two
curved daggers must be mentioned, probably originating from North Caucasia or
the South Russian steppes and belonging to the 5th or 4th century BC (Erä-Esko
1969; Rech 1973; Salo 1984a: 196-197; Peets 2003a: 76). These artefacts illustrate
what has already been stated in the case of iron production, i.e. the eastern impact
of early metal technology as well as imported objects evident in the northern part
of Finland.
From the point of view of southern and western Finland several groups of
artefacts can be included in a discussion on early iron objects.111 One such group is
iron bracelets, evidently belonging to the early stage of iron manufacturing. Two
such bracelets have been found at Penttala as well as Tarringinmäki in Nakkila, two
at Lauhianmäki in Eura and one at Frönäsudden in Ylimarkku (Salo 1970: 65, 98;
1981: Kuva 116; Kivikoski 1973: Abb. 24; Miettinen 1980: 93; 1986; 1989: 159; 1994a:
159; Lehtosalo-Hilander 2000: 122-123, 127). In Finland the general view has been that
some of the bracelets may be of Pre-Roman date, while others belong to the Roman
Period (e.g. Salo 1968: 106-107). In Estonia there have been found no less than 36
iron bracelets; it has been suggested that massive bracelets belong to the beginning
of the Iron Age while narrower samples were in use throughout the Pre-Roman
Iron Age (Lang 2000a: 140-141). One problem with regard to this classification is
that these bracelets – at least in Finland – are often badly preserved.

111
The object categories discussed in this chapter do not cover all potentially Pre-Roman
iron objects. For example, the sickle-knives (discussed earlier in the Paimio Spurila
case) have been left out, like various single finds of indistinct form. Some iron objects,
possibly dating from the Early Iron Age have, for example, been revealed at the Böle
settlement site. These include two iron knives and one iron arrowhead (Edgren 1996b:
73-74; 1999b: 318).

241
 Another type of early iron object is iron pins, which can end in a spiral or a ring
or in the form of a shepherd’s hook. These were probably dress adornments, but it
has also been suggested that the shepherd’s crook pins could have been functional
items used when spinning thread from wool (Luoto 1992; 2004: 48).112 Iron pins,
shepherd’s crook pins in particular, were in use during both the Early and Middle
Iron Age. Among the probably earliest Finnish examples are two pins with a ring-
shaped end from Kuusisto in Nakkila and Karimaa in Noormarkku (Salo 1987:
Fig. 3). Both have been found in a cairn. The Kuusisto pin has been regarded as
dating from the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Pre-Roman Iron
Age (Salo 1981: 270, Kuva 116) and the one from Karimaa as dating from the
Early Roman Iron Age, with the reservation that it could possibly be from the last
century BC (Salo 1987: 67). The late dating of the Karimaa pin most of all seems to
be due to the general idea that cemeteries containing gravegoods usually do not
predate the Roman Period (Salo 1987: 66-67). The artefact as such could, however,
be much older. In Estonia ring-shaped pins belong to the end of the Bronze Age
and the early Pre-Roman Iron Age (Lang 1996: 285-288). A surprisingly late dating
has also been attributed to an iron pin with spiral-shaped head from Penttala in
Nakkila. Also this pin represents a form deriving, in principle, from the Bronze
Age. The relationship between the Penttala pin and Late Bronze Age and early Pre-
Roman Iron Age spiral-ended pins was recognized by Salo (1968: 98, T. 37:3) when
discussing the Penttala finds, but still the artefact has been dated in accordance
with the idea that the entire Penttala cemetery would date from the Early Roman
Iron Age. This is probably not correct. Rather some of the Penttala finds indicate
an earlier use of the site, including deposition of gravegoods as early as the Pre-
Roman Iron Age.113 A Pre-Roman dating seems the most likely also in the case of a
spiral-ended pin found at the Böle settlement site in Porvoo (Edgren 1996b: 73-75).

112
The idea is that the pins would have been used to fasten the wool to a board, from which
it was spun. In accordance with the linkage between the pins and wool it has been
suggested that this form of pins would indicate the importance of Early Iron Age sheep
farming in comparison to the increased impact of cattle during the later part of the Iron
Age (Luoto 2004: 48).
113
From the same context as the spiral-headed pin comes a dagger, originally dated by
Salo (1968: 129-130; 1984a: 193-194) accordingly to the Early Roman Iron Age. The
dagger was previously compared by Šturms (1935: 266) with a short sword from Jäbara
in Estonia, dated with reference to Celtic swords to the early Pre-Roman Iron Age. The
Jäbara finds are still considered as belonging to the early Pre-Roman Iron Age and
(among other finds) the sword has been regarded as one of the earliest iron objects in
Estonia (e.g. Peets 2003a: 51; 2003b: 214). The Penttala dagger and a few other early iron
artefacts were later discussed by Salo (e.g. 2004b: 151) as Pre-Roman types of objects,
but still with the comment that the Finnish contexts of such finds are Early Roman (50-
200 AD). Another view would obviously be that the Pre-Roman objects underline the
necessity of re-thinking the dates of the contexts, as in the case of Penttala.

242
The pin was found in an excavation area where the youngest settlement phase was
represented by epineolithic pottery (Strandberg 2002: 212).114
At Penttala at least one pin with an end shaped like the typical shepherd’s crook
pin also occurred; the shape of another pin is more indefinite (Salo 1968: T. 38:1, T
40:2). These two examples are the only pins made of iron, which have been dated
to the Early Roman Iron Age – most of these pins are from younger contexts (Luoto
1992: Liite 1).115 Whether some pins could be even older than the Early Roman
Iron Age has not been considered. For example, Jukka Luoto (1992) has – with
reference to Lõugas (1971) – held the position that shepherd’s crook pins do not
predate the Roman Period – not in Finland, Estonia, or the other East-Baltic states.
As stated above, the Penttala context could be older than previously thought, and
the possibility of an old dating was also insinuated above in the case of one pin
from the Vanhalinna hill-fort. The latter was compared with Estonian finds, some
of which actually occur in hill-fort contexts. Even in Estonia this group of artefacts
is, however, not easy to date; the current view is that shepherd’s crook pins were
introduced in the late Pre-Roman Iron Age, but stayed in use during the Roman
Iron Age and even later (Lang 1996: 55, 288-289; 2000a: 141-142). In addition to what
has been stated above regarding different types of pins, one should once again
remember Dåvits. The possibility of iron pins occurring in Pre-Roman contexts in
Finland is suggested by the fact that iron fragments – probably from pins – also
occurred in the Dåvits cemetery (Meinander 1969: 39).
An important find with regard to other types of iron objects is the late Pre-
Roman hoard find from Malmsby in Pernaja, which includes tenon axes, a socketed
axe, spearheads as well as sickles and scythes (Meinander 1949: 102-103; Salmo
1953; Salo 1968: 83, T. 48-50; Salo 1984a: 191). The composition of the find has been
desribed as “local” (Salo 1984a: 192) – some of the finds have even been regarded
as probably made by “local” blacksmiths (Peets 2003a: 76). These interpretations
are evidently based on the mixed combination of Finnish or East-Baltic tenon axes
together with spearheads of supposedly Gotlandic origin (Salo 1968: 131-138;
1984a: 191). The early dating of especially the long narrow spearheads included
in the hoard gains some confidence from the fact that such spearheads do not
occur in Finnish Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries. There is only one other find

114
As in the Penttala finds, the Böle spiral-ended pin (as well as the abovementioned
necklace with cone-shaped ends and the serial bracelets, for example) were also earlier
dated to the Early Roman Iron Age (e.g. Hirviluoto 1985: 63).
115
A further question is how shepherd’s crook pins made of bronze should be dated. In
Finland such pins occur in contexts dated to the Early Roman Iron Age at Pikkulinnanmäki
in Porvoo (Hirviluoto 1968: Abb. 12), Kroggårdsmalmen in Karjaa (Salo 1968: Taf 4:1)
and Spurila in Paimio (2 pins) (Luoto 1992: Kuva 6). All of these are cemeteries where
features possibly originating from the Pre-Roman Iron Age also occur.

243
discussed in the context of such spearheads: a long, narrow spearhead from Hölsö
in Ylistaro, differing from the Malmsby objects as it has a pointed ridge (Salo 1968:
89; cf. Hackman 1905: Tafel 17:6). Other Early Iron Age spearheads have normally
been attributed to the Roman Period, when they occur frequently.
The Malmsby hoard from Pernaja contains two 15-18 cm long sickles and three
25-35 cm long scythes. According to Salo (1968: 166-167; 1984b: 94), their forms
resemble similar objects found in Belarus and the East-Baltic area. Within Early
Iron Age agriculture it seems that the most important innovation was in fact the
scythe, as sickles had already been made of flint and bronze. Scythes do not occur
in Roman Iron Age graves (Salo 1968: 167), which underlines the importance of
the Malmsby hoard. Generally the whole composition of the find is interesting
from an economical point of view, as the appearance of both iron axes, sickles and
scythes indicates increased opportunities for field clearance and harvesting (e.g.
Luoto 2004: 38). During the Early Roman Iron Age small sickles continue to occur
on the Finnish coast in female graves (Salo 1968: 165-167, 224). Towards the Late
Iron Age, sickles grew bigger and scythes begun to occur frequently, especially in
the Viking Age. Salo (1995a: 22) has interpreted this development as indicating the
minor importance of cereal cultivation in the Early Iron Age and its increase during
the later parts of the Iron Age. According to Salo, cultivation grew in importance
towards the Late Iron Age, when winter fodder was also used more than before.
The occurrence of special agricultural items such as scythes and sickles (as well
as ball-shaped quern stones) during the Early Iron Age must, however, indicate
some degree of importance of agriculture. The size of the items is probably not
the most conclusive factor. The early iron implements copied earlier cutting edges;
the development towards more functional forms and sizes, made possible by the
qualities of the new material, followed later. The importance of agriculture is in
fact highlighted by the fact that agricultural tools were among the first to be made
when iron technology became known.
With regard to the dating of sickles, it can be noticed that sickles occur frequently
in Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries. Whether some finds may be older than that
is difficult to prove, but it would seem likely, as the sickles are quite typical late
Pre-Roman cemetery finds in Sweden, for example (Björk 2005: 71). In Estonia the
general view has been that the iron sickles found in cemeteries date to the beginning
of the Early Roman Iron Age at the earliest (e.g. Laul & Tõnisson 1991; Peets 2003a:
228). Some broad sickles (best known from a couple of bog finds) have, however,
been compared with Swedish late Pre-Roman forms (Tamla 1995: 104). One early
example in a cemetery context is the broad sickle from Poanse (Mandel 1978).
In Finland early samples – except the Malmsby find – are more difficult to point
out. Maybe (once again) the Penttala cemetery contains a comparably early sickle,

244
representing a broad-bladed form with early Pre-Roman parallels on Gotland (Salo
1968: T. 36:3; 1984a: 194; 1997: 95; 2004b: 151). Fragmentary broad sickles also occur
in the material from the Kroggårdsmalmen cemetery in Karjaa (Salo 1968: T. 1:2, T.
6:6; cf. Tamla 1995: 104). Another find that comes to mind is a fragmentary sickle
(TYA 175:6) from Vermuntila in Rauma. The sickle, dated to the Early Roman Iron
Age (Salo 1981: 121) is the only metal find from a cairn. What may indicate an early
dating are pieces of epineolithic pottery occurring in the Vermuntila cairns.
In a way, the Vermuntila case designates the need of – and at the same time the
prospect of – further studies into the chronology of Early Iron Age cemeteries and
metal objects. The occurrence of cremated bones possible to radiocarbon date give
the possibility of dating the Vermuntila find, and could help refine the chronology
in many other cases as well. It is easy to predict that this possibility of dating will
become increasingly important for Early Iron Age studies in the future. Some
rethinking could also be done without the aid of archaeometry. The chronological
interpretations of artefacts (both bronze and iron ones) presented above, have in
many cases been hampered by the fact that the theory of settlement continuity
has not influenced the chronological interpretation of cemeteries as much as one
would have expected. Many potential Pre-Roman artefact types have been dated
primarily to the Roman Period, one point being that cemeteries containing grave-
goods started to occur during that period. This seems like a classical circular
argument. In the future, we are likely to see an increased discussion on the Finnish
Pre-Roman Iron Age, involving – finally – the rejection of the idea of an abrupt start
of deposition of grave-goods during the Early Roman Iron Age.

5.3.5. More on Early Iron Age axes – including a closer look

at cuneiform axes

The Early Iron Age axes can be divided into three main types: socketed axes,
tenon axes and cuneiforn (or wedge-shaped) axes. The cuneiform axes represent
the most primitive type of axes with a shafthole, later to occur in more complex
forms. From a Finnish point of view, socketed axes and tenon axes have been dealt
with on many occasions, while the cuneiform axes have been overlooked. The most
common Finnish Early Iron Age axes are the socketed ones, a type found in the
East-Baltic area as well as in Sweden, for example. The most interesting shapes
are the ones with an eyelet or loop on the side of the axe, carrying on the form of
Bronze Age socketed axes. In Finland all such finds, less than ten in all, are single
finds or found in contexts that do not provide the possibility of exact dating. The
origin of the type must, nevertheless, belong to the very beginning of the Iron Age

245
(Salo 1968: 160; 1984a: 192). A Pre-Roman dating at the latest is implied by one such
axe (Salo 1968: T. 45:2) found at the Böle site in Porvoo, where the most important
Iron Age settlement phase is indicated (in addition to radiocarbon dates etc.) by the
occurrence of Morby Ware. Among the Baltic Finns it seems that it was specifically
the slim Late Bronze Age Mälar-type axe that was copied into iron (type I:1,
according to Salo), while the Swedish axes (type I:2 ) represent a different, broader
form (Meinander 1954b: 32; Salo 1968: 159-163; 1984a: 192; 1984b: 91; Kuzminych
1996: 23).116 Socketed axes later developed into forms without the characteristic
loop and stayed in use until the Merovingian Period. According to Luoto (2004: 38),
who has dealt with the subject most recently, Roman Period axes have been mainly
found on the coast while axes found in Migration Period contexts are characteristic
of Satakunta and Häme.117
The second iron axe type belonging to the Pre-Roman Iron Age is the ‘tenon
axe’, tappikirves (Fi.) or Zapfenbeile (Ge.). In addition to the Finnish finds, the type
is known only from a few sites in Estonia, one from Latvia (e.g. Vasks 2001: 144,
att.: 3) and one from northernmost Lithuania (Kulikauskas 1961: 114 pav: 1). The
Lithuanian axe differs slightly in form from the others, but is usually regarded as
belonging to the same group. The type is best known from the eight axes in the
Malmsby hoard; in addition to these only two similar axes have been found in
Finland, one of which from an area in ceded Karelia, i.e. present-day Russia (Salo
1968: 164-165; Kivikoski 1973: 26, Abb. 58). The area of distribution suggests that
the type may have originated in the area around the Gulf of Finland. With reference
to the Malmsby find, this type of axe can be dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. A
Pre-Roman dating is most probable also in the case of the axe found in cairn A at
Järnvik in Pohja together with Morby Ware (Salo 1968: 84, T. 9:4-8).
The third of the main Early Iron Age axe types occurring in Finland is the
cuneiform axe (cf. Wuolijoki 1972: Kuva 28; Kivikoski 1973: Abb. 882), which has
been identified in four cases.118 The problem with regard to the Finnish axes has
been that one object of this type, from Ilomäki in Loppi in the province of Häme,
has been interpreted as a Viking Age cemetery find (Kivikoski 1951: 20, Kuva 827;
Wuolijoki 1972: 26). The cuneiform axe has thus ended up among Viking Age objects
in Finnish atlantes picturing Iron Age object types (Hackman 1900; Kivikoski 1951;
1973). In accordance with this, Finnish cuneiform axes have generally been dated

116
An exceptional find is an unsymmetrical, socketed iron axe with a loop from Otaniemi
in Kannonkoski, which may reflect influences of eastern bronze axes (Salo 1984a: 196).
117
The study by Luoto (2004: 39-45) includes a catalogue of Finnish and Swedish socketed
axes.
118
The Finnish finds comes from Ilomäki in Loppi (KM 3144:2), Pöhlökangas in Pihtipudas
(KM 8702:10), Palojoki in Nurmijärvi (KM 9227) and Hirvensalo in Turku (TMM
15740).

246
to the Viking Age – in the Ilomäki case even recently (Matiskainen & Ruohonen
2004: 92-93). From the point of view of the Kemiönsaari study the cuniform axes
originally drew attention as one such axe is an archipelago find from the island
Hirvensalo in Turku. Also the Hirvensalo axe had earlier been dated (in accodance
with the general dating applied for the type in Finland) to the Viking Age (Tuovinen
1994: 40; cf. 2002a: 55). The Viking Age dating of these axes is, however, confusing.
The simple form of the axes (Fig. 109) differs totally from the general forms of Late
Iron Age axes and – what is most important – the same type of axe occurs in Early
Iron Age contexts in Estonia and Latvia.
One axe (AI 2617:40) of the
type in question is present in the
find material from the Jäbara C
cemetery in northern Estonia, in
a context confidently dated to the
Early Iron Age – most recently
to the late Pre-Roman Iron Age
(Jaanits et al. 1982: 232-233;
Schmiedehelm 1983: 38-40; Lang
1996: 288-290, 301; 2000a; 143;
Kriiska & Tvauri 2002: 129). There
are also some other Estonian axes KM 3144:2 KM 8702:10

of the same type. An old find is

the axe from Kunda in northern
Estonia (Riga Katalog 1896: 21,
Tafel 22:12; Lõugas 1985: Abb.
2:1; Tamla 1995: Abb. 6:7). This is
a moor find, the find context of
which cannot give a reliable age,
but the axe has been regarded as
dating from the first or second
century AD (Lõugas 1985: 59).
This seems to be the general
KM 9227 TMM 15740
dating often ascribed to these
axes before, but in more recent
0 10 cm
discussions a dating to the Pre-
Roman Iron Age has been more
accentuated (as in the Jäbara
Fig. 109. Finnish cuneiform axes from Loppi (KM
case). With regard to dating, 3144:2), Pihtipudas (KM 8702:10), Nurmijärvi
axes found in cemetery contexts (KM 9227) and Turku (TMM 15740).

247
are the most interesting. One such find is an axe found in the Tandemägi tarand
cemetery at Võhma in northern Estonia (AI 5074A: 37; Moora 1974: Tablica IV:
20; Lang 2000a: 143, Joon. 56). The whole cemetery was originally dated to the
beginning of the first millennium AD (Moora 1974: 86-87). According to current
chronology, an older and broader dating would seem more appropriate as the
cemetery contains Bräcksta type necklaces, simple bronze bracelets, iron bracelets
and shepherd’s crook pins (cf. Moora 1974: Tablica IV) datable to a period from
the early Pre-Roman Iron Age to the Early Roman Iron Age. The context of the
cuneiform axe is one of the youngest within the cemetery, dated to the late Pre-
Roman Iron Age or the Early Roman Iron Age (Lang 2000a: 145). In connection
with the discussion of the Tandemägi axe four other Estonian axes of an associate
form have been mentioned One is a stray find from the area of Viljandi, one comes
from the Suka cemetery near Abja, one from the Presti cemetery in Rebala and one
from a cemetery in Karuste on the island Saaremaa (Lang 2000a: 143). The Karuste
axe (Moora 1956: Joon 16; Vassar 1956: 169, Joon 37) had earlier been dated to the
first or second century AD, but also in this case the dating of the cemetery was later
changed; it is now dated to the late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Early Roman Iron
Age (Lang 2000a: 143). In addition to these axes there is at least one more (a stray
find), from Paduvere in Jõgeva (Lõugas & Selirand 1989: 174, 179-180; cf. Ciglis
2003: 115).119
More examples of cuneiform axes can be found in Latvia, where they form a
distinctive type of their own among the earliest Latvian Iron Age axes (Ciglis 2003;
cf. Graudonis 1967: 103, Tablica XXVII: 6; 1968: V tabula: 13; 2001: 134. att: 5). A total
of 11 cuneiform axes are known, eight of which are single finds. Thus most of the
axes have been found in Latvia and Estonia, which could hint in the direction that
the origin or main production area of these axes should be sought in this region
rather than along the Gulf of Finland, as suggested in the case of the tenon axes
(Fig. 110). The matter is, however, more complicated, as cuneiform axes are known
also from Lithuania (Malonaitis 2005), Belarus, the westernmost part of Russia
and even Ukraine. It has in fact been suggested that this type of axe is originally
Scythian (Graudonis 1967: 103; cf. Lõugas & Selirand 1989: 180; Lang 2000a: 144;
Ciglis 2003).

119
In connection with the Paduvere axe, another similar axe, found as a stray find at
Palamuse in the Jõgeva area, has been mentioned (Lõugas & Selirand 1989: 174, 180).
Whether the second axe represents the cuneiform type cannot be confirmed as no
picture has been published, but judging from the direct comparison with the Paduvere
axe, this seems likely. Ciglis (2003: 115) has noted the Paduvere axe, but unfortunately
recorded it with a wrong reference. The Palamuse axe, however, is not among the axes
listed by him.

248
 One aspect of this type of
axe (as well as other Early Iron
Age axe types) is that many
of them are single finds. This

 accounts for all the Finnish and
Lithuanian samples and most
of the Latvian ones. In Estonia
(as referenced above) five axes
are cemetery finds. In Latvia




 three cuneiform axes have been
found in a cemetery context,

 but they are all from the same
 

Stradze tarand cemetery in






 Curonia. In this case the oldest


finds – including (among other
 
 

 things) the cuneiform axes and a

  
 

 spoon-shaped temple ornament


 – have been redated according

 
to current chronologies and




are regarded as belonging to
a period from the 3rd to the 1st
Fig. 110. Distribution of cuneiform axes in the century BC (Vasks 2006: 102).120
Baltic area. Redrawn from Ciglis (2003: Ris 1), with With regard to the differences
corrections and additions.
in find contexts – involving
many single finds – it is not easy to give any good explanation, but the occurrence
of many of these early axes in stray find contexts points in the direction that early
iron axes were intentionally also deposited outside cemeteries.
It is evident that the Estonian and Latvian axes must be taken into account in
evaluating the dating of the Finnish cuneiform axes – even more so since the dating
of the Loppi find is actually unfounded (Asplund 2000: 62). It appears that the axe
was not found as a closed find in the Viking Age cemetery itself but in a nearby
field, meaning that the find context cannot be used for a contact dating. The Finnish
cuneiform axes thus must be dated according to the Estonian and Latvian parallels

120
The Stradze cemetery was excavated by Sergej Bogojavlenskij in 1896. The finds
(inventory number 35564) have been kept at the State Museum of History in Moscow.
These facts have been presented according to personal information provided by Andrejs
Vasks. A couple of the Stradze finds – a necklace with small cone-shaped ends, the
decoration of which is reminiscent of the Bräcksta type, as well as one cuneiform axe
– have been published by Moora (1952: Ris. 7: 7-8).

249
to the Early Iron Age.121 The spread of the type in the Baltic area could have occurred
in the late Pre-Roman Iron Age at the latest, as several of the cemetery contexts can
be dated to this period. As mentioned above, the form of the axe has been traced
southwards. An innovation from far away could be a possible explanation for the
form of these axes, as there seems to be no common shaft-hole axe typical of the
Bronze Age in the Baltic area, which could have served as stimulus for the form of
the cuneiform axe. Such shapes are rather found among the simple shaft-hole axes
of the Late Neolithic. At present there is no way of combining these forms of stone
axes with the cuneiform ones made of iron. It is interesting, however, that when the
cuneiform axes represent the first form of iron axes with shaft-holes, they equally
represent the last phase of simple shaft-hole axes.
Even though the axes form an easily discernible group, it should also be
emphasized that there is variation – especially with regard to the axe head, the
relative width of the shaft-hole, the side profile of the blade and the form of the
cutting edge. One could speculate, whether there could be a chronological relevance
with regard to this variation. The Hirvensalo axe, for example, differs from the
other axes as to the width of the blade and the form of the shaft-hole.

5.3.6. Other artefacts

In addition to metal objects a few object categories and single finds made of other
materials also belong to the beginning of the Iron Age. A classical find is a ball-
shaped object made of dark red glass or precious stone ornamented in Celtic
style and found in Sipoo in the province of Uusimaa (Meinander 1949: 105; Nylén

121
It is rather surprising that Ella Kivikoski – one of the most prominent specialists on Iron
Age artifacts – misinterpreted the dating of the cuneiform axes. Cemetery C at Jäbara
was excavated as early as 1927 (cf. Schmiedehelm 1983: 25) and other cuneiform axes,
including their dating, were presented at least in the 1950’s and 1960’s (e.g. Moora 1952;
1956; Vassar 1956; Graudonis 1967; 1968). When Kivikoski (1947) published her first
atlas, she acknowledged the pervious work and help by Alfred Hackman, mentioning
especially Hackman’s (1905) work Die ältere Eisenzeit in Finnland. The first book is in
fact dedicated to him. It is likely that, apart fom Hackman’s later work, an old atlas of
prehistoric artefacts compiled by him strongly influenced Kivikoski when she originally
chose the objects to be published in her own atlas. In Hackman’s (1900: Tafel 67: Fig 7,
Tafel 77: Fig 5) atlas the Loppi axe is published on a page containing nothing but Late
Iron Age axes, and reference is given to the Late Iron Age artifacts from the Ilomäki
site. The Ilomäki find complex is described with the words “Zum Teil ein unsicherer
Fund”, a comment not repeated by Kivikoski. She may later have had doubts about the
importance of the dating context of the Ilomäki axe; in the renewed second edition of
the atlas, the site of the find is still mentioned, but the dating reference to the Viking
Age cemetery has been taken away (Kivikoski 1973: 118, Abb. 882). The axe and its
description, however, still remained among the Viking Age artefacts.

250
1969; Salo 1984a: 197). The object is the only one of its kind in Finland and no
exact parallels are available from other parts of Europe either. The ornamentation,
however, is typically Celtic. Other artefacts that can be mentioned in a discussion
focusing on the Pre-Roman Iron Age form two main groups: objects made of stone
and objects made of organic material, which, in the case of Finland, means wooden
objects.122 Among the stone objects, the most typical is the ball-shaped grinding
stone, which is a form occurring throughout the Iron Age. Other stone objects
occurring over several periods can also be found in Pre-Roman contexts. This
includes the possibility of Bronze Age object forms (together with flakes indicative
of the use of stone technology) occurring in the early part of the period. At the end
of the period, on the other hand, the occurrence of elliptical fire striking stones is
possible. In Finland these are usually dated to the Iron Age AD at the earliest, but
as the majority is stray finds, some may be older than that. Such stones occur in
the Przeworsk and Oksywie cultures as early as the late Pre-Roman Iron Age (Salo
1968: 169; 1990b: 49). Probably the fire striking stone from the Penttala cemetery in
Nakkila (Salo 1968: T. 40:3) could be so dated.
The occurrence of grinding stones is a particularly interesting topic – both
regarding the Pre-Roman Iron Age as well as other periods, as the quern stones
probably reflect the development of crop growing. The history of this type of artefact
is older than the Early Iron Age, but there are not many well-dated specimens.
According to the literature, grinding stones are known from some Kiukainen
Culture settlement sites. Often pictured is a complete set, with an upper and a
lower stone, found at the Uotinmäki site in Kiukainen. It has often been stated that
the quern stones in particular from the Uotinmäki, Kaunismäki and Saama sites
in Kiukainen and Harjavalta are numerous (e.g. Salo 1984b: 83, 87; 1997: 64). This
occurrence of quern stones at Kiukainen Culture settlement sites has been regarded
as very important (with the regard to the general importance of farming), and as
a feature underlining the cultural superiority of the Kokemäki River area where
these implements have been found (Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 60-61). What is
important to remember, however, is that the Uotinmäki finds – nine in number
(Meinander 1954a: 11, 113-114; Salo 1981: 307; Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 60)
– are not necessarily from the period of the Kiukainen Culture, as younger finds
have also been recorded at the site (cf. Carpelan 1973: 196-197). With regard to other
sites where early grinding stones occur, the number seems to be rather small; just
one stone has, for example, been found at Kaunismäki in Harjavalta and just one
at Köylypolvi Aarikka in Kiukainen – in areas outside the Kokemäki River area

122
Probably due to the bad preservation of bone in acid soils, important objects like the
Estonian spade-headed bone pins found in Late Bronze Age and early Pre-Roman Iron
Age contexts (Lang 1992) are missing in the Finnish material.

251
the early quern stones are represented only at the Kärsämäki site in Turku (Salo &
Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 60). It can be noted, however, that Kärsämäki is also a site
that has a continuity from the Late Neolithic to the Early Iron Age. What is also
surprising is that practically no finds of grinding stones in Late Neolithic contexts
have been published after these classical finds – regardless of the fact that several
Late Neolithic and Bronze Age sites have been excavated.123 This is comparable to
the situation regarding early quern stones on the Åland Islands where some cases
have earlier been mentioned in the literature, but according to Stenbäck (2003: 91)
there are in fact no clear cases of Neolithic quern stones in the find materials. The
true number of finds of this kind from the time of the Kiukainen Culture – as well
as later periods – is thus unclear, as is detailed information on prehistoric Finnish
quern stone types and dates in general.
During the Late Bronze Age at the latest a new form – the ball-shaped quern
stone – appeared. One well-dated example was found in the Late Bronze Age
Rieskaronmäki house in Nakkila (Salo 1981: 308; 1984b: 87). Another find in a
probable Bronze Age context comes from the Toispuolojannummi site in Paimio
(Vanhatalo 1994: 7). The form is widespread and is mostly related to Iron Age
settlement.124 Such stones in documented Morby Ware contexts have been found
in at least five cases (Edgren 1999b: 326), the stones found at the Tappo settlement
site in Västanfjärd included as one of them. The same form evidently continued to
be used in the Middle or Late Iron Age, or even at the beginning of the Historical
Period. The type is also known from cemeteries, where the stones seem to occur in
both female and male graves (Hackman 1905: 253-254). In addition to the grinding
of grain or other foodstuffs, ball-shaped quern stones may also have been used

123
One reason may be that the issue of grinding stones has not interested archaeologists
recently. There is a possibility that potentially early grinding stones occur, although
unpublished. One such is a fragmentary lower stone (TYA 239:1671) found at the
Niuskala Kotirinne site in Turku (which is the same site where macrofossile barley dated
to the Early Bronze Age has been found). Unfortunately, the Niuskala Kotirinne stone
was found in soil mixed by a ditch at the site. It is, however, probable that the griding
stone belongs to the same period as the settlement site material in general. The main
part of the material is of Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age character, but Late Bronze
Age pottery found nearby as well as radiocarbon dating results suggesting activities at
the site during the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age should also be taken
into account when evaluating the date of the finds (Asplund 1997a: 40).
124
No statistics as to the total number of finds is available, but a fair guess would be that
a few hundreds have been found, as stray finds as well as in different types of sites.
The current idea is that these stones really were used as quern stones. In the early 20th
century, however, the function of ball-shaped quern stones was still not known – at that
time they could be called, for example, bearbeitete würfelförmige Steine (Hackman 1905:
252-254).

252
for the ritual crushing of bones from cremations; this may be one reason why they
are also found in grave contexts (Kaliff 1997: 88-90). Ball-shaped querns also occur
in other parts of the Baltic Sea area. In Estonia they are often connected with the
Bronze Age (e.g. Mandel 1993: 21-23) or the Pre-Roman Iron Age (e.g. Lõugas &
Mägi-Lõugas 1994a: 29-30; 1994b: 391). At the Latvian fortified settlement Brikuļi in
the Lubāna lowlands, most of the ball-shaped grain grinders occurred in the earlier
layers of the settlement, relating to the first millennium BC and the first quarter of
the first millennium AD (Vasks 1994a: 115).
Among the wooden artefacts, a sledge runner of a specific central-ridged type
(Fi. keskiharjallinen jalas or harjajalas) from Puisto in Kullaa (Salo 1965) must be
mentioned. It is radiocarbon dated to 2390 ± 160 BP (Tx-125) (Alhonen 1965: 18), i.e.
850-50 cal BC. There are some other finds representing the same type, two of which
have been radiocarbon dated. Both resulted in a Late Neolithic dating, which gives
some indication of the time-span of use of this particular type.125 During the Early
Iron Age a new type of a lighter sledge seems to have developed, the flat runners of
which were bent upwards in both ends; one sledge runner of this type has given a
Pre-Roman dating and another a most probable date to the Roman Iron Age.126
A further important group of wooden artefacts that has yielded Early Iron Age
datings is skis.127 Several types occur, some of which have been in use simultaneously
(Taavitsainen et al. 2007: 64-75). For example, two skis with flat undersides and
low footspaces between carved side lists with binding holes (type B according to
Manker 1971) have been radiocarbon dated to the Early Iron Age – about as early
datings have also been obtained from types with raised footspaces, without or with
a single groove on the underside (types C1 and C2).128 During the Early Iron Age

125
The sledge runner from Harjakangas in Noormarkku has been dated to 3530 ± 110 BP
(I-1921) (Alhonen 1967) and the one from Ketlahti in Heinola to 3600 ± 175 BP (Hel-659)
(Jungner 1979: 101; Seger 1988: 37-38).
126
The sledge runner from Tarvaalankoski in Laukaa has been dated to 2190 ± 70 (Su-
1513), i.e. 400-50 cal BC and one from Saarijävi to 1790 ± 80 (Su-1514), i.e. 60-420 cal AD
(Vilkuna 1999).
127
The presentation of the material and dates below has benefited from a list of skis compiled
by Jussi-Pekka Taavitsainen. Most of the dates are also included in Taavitsainen et al.
(2007).
128
The type B ski from Viitasaari has been dated to 2370 ± 50 (Su-2485) (Vilkuna 1999),
i.e. 800-350 or 300-250 cal BC and one from Riihimäki to 1950 ± 130 (Hel-23) (Jungner
1979: 7; Naskali 1999: 297), i.e. 400 cal BC – 400 cal AD. The oldest datings of C1 and C2
skis have been both been obtained from Liperi; a C1 ski is dated to 2370 ± 140 (Hel-596),
i.e. 850-100 cal BC, and the oldest C2 ski to 1670 ± 100 (Hel-1078), i.e. 130-600 cal AD
(Jungner 1979: 91; Jungner & Sonninen 1983: 13; Naskali 1999: 298-300).

253
a type of ski with carved edge lists on the underside (type C4) also seems to have
emerged. The oldest radiocarbon datings of this type are from the Pre-Roman and
the Roman Iron Age.129
In addition to sledge runners and skis only single wooden artefacts of other types
have been dated to the Early Iron Age. One such find, which has been radiocarbon
dated to the Bronze Age / Iron Age transition 2455 ± 60 BP (Ua-18767) is a wooden
spoon from Lestijärvi (Immonen 2002). The dating corresponds to the calibrated
date 770-400 cal BC. Apart from wooden artefacts being restricted to just a few
types, it must also be recognized that for the most part they have been found only
in the interior and northern parts of Finland. Only in Satakunta do sledge and ski
finds occur in contexts close to that of the Early Metal Period coastal culture. This
distribution could signify that these objects mainly belong to the Early Metal Period
features of the inland. On the other hand it seems improbable that dwellers on the
coast would not have been aware of objects like sledges and skis, and probably
also been using them on hunting trips and journeys in wintertime. With regard
to the general question of inland / coast relationships, the probable presence of
inland inhabitants on coastal sites – indicated by the occurrence of eastern pottery
types at some settlement sites – could be emphasized. The lack of coastal sledge
and ski finds could thus be due to different environmental circumstances making
the preservation less likely, or the deposition of such objects may have followed
another pattern in the inland than in the coastal area. There is only one wooden
object dated to the Early Iron Age undoubtedly found in the coastal area. This is
not a bog find like most of the inland objects are, but comes from clay sediment
formed on the ancient sea bottom. The find is the remains of a wooden (Alnus sp.)
pot, found during excavations in the town of Turku and radiocarbon dated to 2030
± 25 (Poz-1843, Poz-1844), i.e. 110 cal BC-30 cal AD or 40-60 cal AD (Saloranta &
Tuovinen 2004).

129
A C4 ski from Sysmä gave the result 2220 ± 100 (Hel-1329), i.e. 550 cal BC – 50 cal AD, and
one from Kiukainen the result 1950 ± 50, i.e. 60 cal BC – 220 cal AD (Jungner & Sonninen
1983: 14; Harjula 1996; Naskali 1999: 304).

254
5.4. Main site types

5.4.1. Cairns

Cairns are discussed in several parts of this book, starting from chapter 3 with
a general overview related mainly to Bronze Age cairns. Throughout the book
the significance of Iron Age cairns is also considered, some aspects of which are
summarized in chapter 6. From the point of view of the Early Iron Age it can be
concluded that the erection of cairns – albeit somewhat different from that of the
Bronze Age – continued during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The common denominators
of Early Iron Age cairns seem to be that they are of modest height, sometimes mixed
with earth, and have a less prominent topographical location than cairns of the
Bronze Age. Features sometimes occurring are four-sided structures (Meinander
1969: 32-35; Salo 1970: 83-94; Edgren 1999b: 318) and the use of red sandstone in the
grave constructions (Miettinen 1986; 1994a: 159-161; Edgren 1999b). In many cases
one gets the impression that there is a closer connection between settlement sites
and cairns during the Pre-Roman Iron Age than during the Bronze Age (e.g. Edgren
1999b: 317-319). Even if it has not been possible to examine this more closely within
the present study area, the impression remains that Pre-Roman cairns more often
relate to a permanent settlement site and cultivated land than, for example, to
travelling routes and marine landscapes. People’s place in the world was becoming
more associated with sedentary immobility, no longer defined in relation to motion.
It also seems as though the character of the cairns developed during this time into a
more distinctive shrine or cult site for the family, farm or kin group.
In the archipelago (outside the present study area) some cairns dated to the
Pre-Roman (and Roman) Iron Age also occur. These can be described as low cairns
or stone settings, typically occurring in groups (e.g. Edgren 1993b; Miettinen,
M. 1998). The locations of such cairns may still be closely related to a marine
environment. Within the archipelago of the study area there are no confidently
dated Pre-Roman cairns, but (as stated already earlier) most probably some cairns
close to the Pre-Roman settlement sites in Tappo and Makila are contemporary.
If this is the case, these combinations of cairns and settlement sites – presumably
farms with agricultural land nearby – are rather comparable with Iron Age features
of the mainland than with archipelagic cairns.
Cairns and stone settings thus still marked places where the bones of buried
ancestors connected the living with land and landscapes, but the landscapes of the
Early Iron Age cairns are often different from that of the Bronze Age. While the
old cairns, situated on heights, overlook big parts of landscapes, Iron Age cairns
– at least on the mainland – seem more related to the immediate surrounding of

255
the cairn, probably also connected with the location of the settlement site and the
cleared fields. Cairns may in fact have appeared as the result of field clearance. It
is possible that in some cases clearance cairns in suitable locations could have been
activated to manifest the unity between the cleared fields and the people utilising
the land, but traces of clearance must still have originated that were not used as
graves or in other rituals. These are poorly known, but they occur for example
in the province of Uusimaa – quite near the present study area. Also in Uusimaa
Pre-Roman cairns differ from Bronze Age cairns with regard to structure and
topographical location (Laurén 1993; Maaranen 2000: 186-187). They are built of
stone and earth on mineral soils – not on bedrock – and in many cases groups of
cairns are associated with the occurrence of Morby Ware. Some cairns might be
graves, while others are most probably connected with field clearance (Forsén &
Moisanen 1995: 31-32; Maaranen 2000: 187).
Regardless of the general continuity of cairn building, the modest Early Iron Age
cairns seem to stand for something different than the often big and clearly visible
Bronze Age cairns. One traditional explanation has been that the stratified Bronze
Age society developed into a more egalitarian social order of the Pre-Roman Iron
Age. As has been stated earlier in this book, it can be questioned whether the big
Bronze Age cairns, often built far from the settlements, can be directly interpreted
as representing stratification, i.e. as being erected for powerful individuals or
families. It is as likely that the cairns actually represented larger communities;
albeit the building may have been supervised by leaders, the cairns could have
been erected as public monuments and came to symbolize (among other things)
the collectivity of the builders. In comparison, the Early Iron Age cairns – built
closer to the settlement site (farm) by the settlers of that particular site – have the
more genuine character of a private shrine.
A similar development has been described by Björn Feldt (2005) in the case of
Södermanland in Sweden (where Bronze Age cairns were replaced during the Late
Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age by smaller stone settings and cemeteries).
He has interpreted the development of the Late Bronze Age and Pre-Roman
Iron Age grave ritual as reflecting increased private approaches and priorities.
The development is compared with developments in economy, production and
settlement (Feldt 2005: 179-201). For example, indications of more stationary
and permanent cultivation as well as stabled animals stimulating new forms of
ownership are discussed, as are houses of reduced sizes indicative of smaller social
units than before. Feldt emphasizes the importance of a new attitude towards
ownership and the development of social relations into a more “limited, narrow

256
and introvert attitude”. This could have meant an undisputed right of the farms to
use or possess arable land, a notion perhaps strengthened by the erection of graves
in the vicinity of the settlement sites.
The social organization described by Feldt (2005) is in a way egalitarian, but in
reality these autonomous farms and families taking care of their private interests
could also have meant competition. Laying emphasize on one’s own needs could
have meant suppressing those of others. In that case, social equality of the Early
Iron Age could come close to the cliché of an egalitarian society where some people
are more egalitarian than others. It must be admitted that competition and tension
are difficult to manifest in the archaeological material of the earliest centuries of
the Iron Age, but somewhat later such phenomena start to occur. This has been
acknowledged also by Feldt, who points out the increased need towards the end of
the Pre-Roman Iron Age of social units (farms) to defend the interests of their own –
particularly visible when the first Iron Age weapon graves occurred. In southwestern
Finland similar interpretations – both regarding the farm / cemetery relationships,
increased emphasis on private ownership as well as a change in mortuary rituals
– would seem plausible concerning the development. This probably started during
the Pre-Roman Iron Age, but became more visible in the Iron Age AD.

5.4.2. Late Pre-Roman and Roman Period cemeteries – an issue of identity?

In the very end of the Pre-Roman Iron Age and during the Roman Iron Age new
types of graves containing foreign grave goods appeared, reflecting increased
contacts with areas around the Baltic. Salo (1968) has interpreted these contacts
as including immigration. On the basis of an analysis of find materials, Salo (1968:
204-210) has shown that the different grave forms of the Early Roman Iron Age
show connections with the tarand grave area of Estonia and Latvia as well as with
Scandinavia and the area of the Vistula river in northern Poland, the direction of
influence differing between different grave types. According to Salo (1968: 228-229;
Abb. 119; cf. Kivikoski 1939; Pihlman 1987), this heterogeneity of find materials
and grave types suggests that at least part of the new materials and practices
were brought to Finland by immigrants mainly from Estonia, Latvia and eastern
Sweden. More recently, Salo (2003: 54; 2004a: 9; 2005b) has specifically pointed out
that the acceptance of the theory of a continuous Early Iron Age Finnish settlement
does not mean that the theory of colonization must be rejected – general settlement
continuity does not mean to exclude foreign immigrant settlement on the coast.

257
Salo thus maintains the idea that the cemeteries containing grave goods of the
Roman Period have for the most part been built by foreigners.130
Another explanation could be that the graves merely reflect a period of
increasing contacts and interaction due to new contact networks opening up all
over Europe. New ideas as well as items spread and were accepted by the people of
southwestern Finland. New forms of material culture were introduced especially
during the Roman Iron Age and used in diverse social contexts, including mortuary
rituals of a variety of forms. This is to some extent similar to the Estonian Early Iron
Age, where a variety of grave forms were present during the Pre-Roman Iron Age.
This “ideological pluralism” continued in parts of the country during the Roman
Iron Age, while in others it changed into “ideological monism” characterized by
only firmly structured typical tarand graves (Lang 2000b).
The idea of changes in the Roman Iron Age without exclusive immigration has
been acknowledged by other Finnish archaeologists as well. Sirkku Pihlman (1985;
68-69) has suggested that the changes visible in the cemeteries of the Early Roman

130
One of the most significant Early Roman Iron Age cemeteries is that of Kärsämäki in
Turku, introducing a burial custom involving the deposition of cremated bones and
grave-goods in pits. Salo (1968: 232-234; 1984b: 94) has interpreted cemeteries of the
Kärsämäki type (as well as the so-called Untamala and Koskenhaka types) as indications
of Scandinavian immigration during the Early Roman Iron Age. These cemeteries
contain relatively rich graves with weapons. Salo (e.g. 1995a: 9) has suggested that this
reflects an immigration mainly of groups of armed men who settled among the Finnish
population, possibly as tax collectors and merchants. The weaponry in the graves is
interpreted as Scandinavian, but as the (female) fibulae, bracelets and necklaces are
similar to those in other Finnish grave types, they have been interpreted as belonging
to local people (Salo 1968; Salo 1984b: 94; 1995a: 9). It is, however, not at all certain
whether the gender relations or the idea of the origin of the immigrants can be that
straight forward. Within the Kärsämäki material there is, according to an osteological
analysis, at least one man who had a bracelet (Raninen 2005c: 54). Whether the origin
of the people buried in Kärsämäki should be sought in some specific area is not self-
evident either. According to Raninen (2005c), it is possible that the origin was both in
eastern Sweden and the southeast Baltic area (more specifically the Wielbark culture in
the Vistula area), instead of either of them. Thus Raninen thinks in the same manner
as Kaliff (2001), pointing out the interaction between these two areas. One step further
would be to focus on the old connections throughout the Baltic, like between Estonia,
southwestern Finland and eastern Sweden, visible already during the Pre-Roman Iron
Age. Contacts and bonds may have existed between far away areas that made the
difference between local people and ‘immigrants’ a secondary issue. More interesting
than the possibility or probability of immigration is the question of why the Kärsämäki
people buried their dead in such an expressive manner in the first place? The most
plausible explanation is that the rich weapon graves are related to the expression of
identity in an attempt to consolidate or promote the position of the Kärsämäki people in
relation to their neighbours. The idea of consolidation could be linked with immigration
(cf. Pihlman 1985: 27; 1992: 48), while a more general expression of power and wealth
may well have come about due to local competition. This is probably the case also with
regard to many other rich cemeteries occurring throughout the Roman Iron Age.

258
Iron Age reflect an innovative period, characterized by increased interaction and
openness to both new ideas as well as foreigners. This is a view shared also by
Raninen (2005c: 45, 55-56) who sees this as one reason for the many mortuary
practices of the period, which in addition to immigration would have involved
changes of ideologies, religious beliefs and identities among local individuals and
groups. The beginning of the Iron Age AD was a period characterized by increasing
interaction between societies, which led to different forms of encounters, including
the development or increased use of contact networks and the construction of new
identities.
The quantification of finds regarded as representing foreign contacts is
problematic. A comparison of finds from different areas of origin could be based
on the use of relative frequencies, but what should be counted – single artefacts or
artefact types? The cemeteries from the early periods of the Iron Age contain many
artefact types, each one found only in small numbers, while during the Late Iron
Age some main artefact types are dominant with regard to the numbers of finds.
The best way to proceed would thus be to count relative frequencies of occurrences,
which in the case of the Late Iron Age is difficult as there are thousands of finds
to be evaluated. A coarse subjective evaluation, however, can be made, based on
the most easily interpreted ornaments from different periods (cf. Asplund 1999:
45-47). If really trying to base the discussion on some calculation of objects or
types, the simplest way of proceeding would be to count object types from the
Finnish Iron Age atlas by Kivikoski (1973), where the interpretation of the origin
of objects is generally found in the text. For example, in the case of 214 types of
fibulae, around 60-80 % of types per period are defined as to their area of origin.
Such a comparison of the occurrence of ornament styles representative of different
areas can be combined with considerations of identity, due to the fact that style and
especially body signals can in principle also be regarded as a possible means of
conveying information concerning identity to others.
From a long-term perspective there is a change after the Scandinavian-influenced
Bronze Age. During the Pre-Roman Iron Age the Bräcksta type necklaces associate
the Swedish, coastal Finnish and Estonian materials. After that – during the Early
Roman Iron Age at the latest – it is quite obvious that East Baltic ornament forms
became predominant in southwestern Finnish burial grounds. No native ornament
styles have been found, and Scandinavian ornaments are rare exceptions. This East
and South-East Baltic dominance either has nothing to do with the expression of
identity, or the people buried in Finnish cemeteries were signalling an association
with the East Baltic cultural sphere. In the Late Roman Iron Age and especially
during the Migration Period the material culture started to change. East Baltic
ornaments were still frequent, but Scandinavian forms increased in number and

259
the first few local style ornaments appeared. Such ornaments were introduced in
Ostrobothnia, the area most strongly influenced by Scandinavia at the time. This
may have been a case where increased contacts led to the expression of a local
group identity in opposition to the Scandinavian influence, or (perhaps more likely)
the general flourishing of the region simply stimulated craftsmanship and led to
new variations and inventions. Later, during the Merovingian Period, ‘Finnish’
ornament forms occurred also in southwestern Finland. Local forms increased in
number in the Viking Age, as did the Scandinavian ones, while the number of East
Baltic forms diminished.131
From the point of view of the Early Iron Age the key question is, whether objects
like fibulae were an important part of the individual habitus, or just traded goods.
Considering the dominance of East Baltic forms, it is tempting to suggest that
the acceptance of these ornaments during the Roman Iron Age was a conscious
choice, which made the ornaments part of the habitus and symbolic repertoire of
the people using them (Asplund 1999). Meanings were attached to them, and they
probably came to signify a special relationship with people wearing ornaments of
the same origin. This does not exclude Scandinavian contacts and elements, which
are suggested by the Roman Iron Age weaponry. During the Late Roman Iron Age
some luxury objects of Scandinavian origin as well as Roman imports also occur,
which most probably entered Finland through Scandinavia (e.g. Kivikoski 1955;
Raninen 2005b). Nor the general tendency of wearing East Baltic style ornaments or
the occurrence of Scandinavian luxuries does, however, mean that the relationships
indicated by these objects were necessarily due to immigration. The appearance of
new grave forms and ‘foreign’ ornaments and weapons is most of all an indication

131
The concepts of group identity and ethnicity are problematic, not least the concept
‘Finnish’ in the context of Iron Age material culture. This has been discussed by, for
example, Raninen (2005a: 233-236), pointing out the problem of how the ethnic name
used in connection with the categorisation of material culture can give a wrong
impression; it is most probable that no ethnic Finnish consciousness like in the modern
nation state existed during the Iron Age. There are, however, many other reasons to be
critical as regards interpretations suggesting that ornament styles are ethnic markers
or signals of group identity. In contact situations, some individuals and groups may
choose strategies of integration, while others may retain distinct identities (even
without reference to material culture, with the result that their boundaries will be
invisible to archaeologists). It is also possible to change one’s identity in situations
where this is advantageous; for example ethnicity may be socially stigmatised and one
may deliberately choose not to signal ethnicity at all. There is also the possibility of
not one but several overlapping identities. We may belong to an ethnic category, but
within this category we may define ourselves as belonging to a specific subgroup, the
members of which deliberately distinguish themselves from other subgroups. Finnish
Iron Age society was not a unified entity, with common aims and with just one code for
the expression of identity. If we look more closely at the picture, combining ornaments
with other materials, like weapons (e.g. Pihlman 1990), there is actually a great deal of
variation.

260
of a period of change, which affected societies locally, although closely connected
with overseas contacts and probably furthered by general economical-political
transformations in Europe. In the northeastern Baltic area this became visible as
changes in material culture as well as in mortuary rituals.

5.4.3. Pit-shaped hearths

Among the features found at Pre-Roman sites there are two that seem to be of
special importance. These are post-holes (discussed in the following chapter) and
large pit-shaped hearths. Pre-Roman fireplaces usually tend to be rather big and
sooty – often deep – and may contain pieces of pottery. A common interpretation
is, that these features are cooking pits, like in the case of deep Pre-Roman fireplaces
excavated at the Vermuntila Kallio site in Rauma (Salo 1983; 1984b: 92-93).132 Such
hearths occur in different parts of Finland. Within the study area the best examples
of big sooty Pre-Roman hearths are the ones at Moisio in Piikkiö, mentioned in
chapter 3.4.3. The observations made at the Kyynäräisen mökki site in the village
of Pappila in Sauvo also indicate the same type of feature. Most commonly, the
Bronze Age or the Pre-Roman Iron Age pit-shaped hearths are on the Bothnian
coasts – both on the Finnish side as well as in Sweden (e.g. Forsberg 1999: 258-
261; Korteniemi 2002; Okkonen 2003: 212-213). On the southern Ostrobothnian
coast deep pit-shaped fireplaces containing soot, charcoal and burned stones are
commonly found in connection with Bronze Age and Early Iron Age cairns as well
as on settlement sites (Miettinen, M. 1998: 72-73, 110-113). Further north, some of
the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sites contain over a hundred pit-shaped large
hearths, indicating the large-scale use of heat in connection with some economic
activity (Ylimaunu 1999: 7-8; cf. Okkonen & Äikäs 2006). In one of the excavated
pits at Hangaskangas in Ii there were almost 1.5 tons of burnt stones. In this area
the youngest pits of this kind have been radiocarbon dated to the Viking Age.
Pit-shaped hearts dated to the Early Metal Period also occur in the inland, like in
Central Finland (Taavitsainen et al. 2004).

132
Included in the Vermuntila Kallio material are fragments of at least one pot which
might be dated to the Late Neolithic or the Bronze Age (Asplund 1997a: 35-36), but
the main part of the material supports the Pre-Roman dating. Four radiocarbon dates
are available. These have given the results (in order of age): 2300 ± 70 BP (TKU-003;
Pihlaja & Haihu 1991), i.e. 800-650 or 550-150 cal BC (the latter period giving a 91,7 %
probability), 2270 ± 110 BP (Hel-1884; Jungner & Sonninen 1989: 56), i.e. 800-1 cal BC,
2190 ± 110 BP (Hel-1885; Jungner & Sonninen 1989: 56), i.e. 550 cal BC – 100 cal AD, and
2090 ± 60 BP (TKU-009; Pihlaja & Haihu 1991), corresponding to the calibrated date 360-
290 cal BC or 260 cal BC – 60 cal AD (the latter period giving a 91,7 % probability).

261
 The function of these big and deep fireplaces is not known. The term cooking
pit has been regarded as too simple and inappropriate as this type of feature
probably includes pits of different functions (e.g. Taavitsainen et al. 2004: 15-16;
Äikäs & Ikäheimo 2005). Several suggestions for the function of the type have been
presented, one possible explanation being that they would have been a sort of oven
for the drying and smoking of different kind of game; other similar explanations
are that they may have been used for extracting seal blubber or for preparing skins
(e.g. Korteniemi 2002; Okkonen & Äikäs 2006). Okkonen (2003: 213) has pointed
out that the shape may have been related to a general possibility of regulating the
burning process using a turf cover, thus being able to keep the heat longer and
saving firewood.
Cooking pits are a typical feature of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age sites
both in northern and southern parts of Sweden. In Norrland they have been
interpreted as related to sealing, while in the southern part of the country they have
been discussed as maybe related to ritual cooking (e.g. Carlsson 2001: 50). One point
is that the use of fire in ritual contexts seems to increase during the Pre-Roman Iron
Age. Large numbers of hearths dating to this period are found in the landscape,
graves contain more soot and charcoal than before, and fire-cracked stones together
with soot and charcoal have been spread out at settlement sites as well as at rock-
carving sites (Hauptman-Wahlgren 2002: 151-153, 245). Summing up, it seems that
in recent Scandinavian discussion (e.g. Gustafson et al. 2005) the function of pit-
shaped hearths has been interpreted in various ways. The ranges of dates (mostly
the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in Southern Scandinavia while the Roman
and the Migration Period in Norway) as well as types (from single pits to large
fields of pit-shaped hearths) and probable functions (from normal preparation of
meals to specific forms of cooking and the production of ritual smoke) signify that
this group of features is difficult to interpret and may contain a variety of possible
categories of use.

5.4.4. Building remains

During the 1990’s Stone Age and Early Metal Period buildings were in the focus
of Finnish research (cf. Ranta 2002). New results (concerning, for example,
semisubterranean houses) have been obtained from the inland and northern parts
of the country, while southwestern Finnish building remains have been discussed
in just a few cases. One of these is a summary of Early Iron Age building remains
(Asplund 2002), which the following text is for the most part based on. The
starting point is the questioning of the general conception of the form of living in

262
southwestern Finland during the Early Metal Period. This has been closely related
to the Late Bronze Age house excavated at Rieskaronmäki in Nakkila in the early
1960’s (Salo 1962: 49–54; 1976; 1981: 64–68; 1999: 26–27; cf. Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo
2001: 71-73). This house has become a sort of icon of the idea that the Finnish ‘house’
and ‘farm’ (both talo in Finnish) developed in the Bronze Age (Asplund 2002). As
drawings of the Rieskaronmäki house have found their way into schoolbooks, this
has also started to become part of common knowledge and all-round education in
Finland (Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 72). The rectangular shape, the broad stone
foundation supporting the walls, the east-west direction, and the combination
of one end for living and the other for a byre are all features comparable with
Bronze Age houses in Scandinavia. For this reason the idea of Finnish Bronze Age
and Early Iron Age buildings is often related, consciously or unconsciously, to the
image of a Scandinavian-type longhouse. There has not been much consideration
of the possibility that the Rieskaronmäki house may actually have been merely a
short-term peculiarity rising from local contacts, or an isolated instance of a house
built by an immigrant family. This question should, nevertheless, be raised, since
no parallels to this type of house have been discovered in Finland (cf. Asplund
2002).133
If Early Metal Period long-houses were found in Finland, one would expect them
to be three-aisled longhouses similar to the type occurring in southern and central
Scandinavia (Uino 1986: 174–175; Tesch 1993: 174–183; Göthberg 1995: 69–73). In
central Sweden these houses can be almost identical with, for example, houses in
Denmark (e.g. Reisborg 1994). Farther east, like in the southeastern Baltic area, the
techniques of building were evidently different, since this type of house does not
seem to occur. This is the case in Finland as well; apart from Rieskaronmäki, Early
Metal Period longhouses of the Scandinavian type are so far not known except for
a couple of more or less speculative cases. The few reliable finds of longhouses
in Finland are all from the Iron Age AD. Thus one major question is, what were

133
The occurrence of a foreign house on the Finnish coast would seem quite possible,
especially during the Bronze Age, when western contacts are indicated by imported
Scandinavian bronze objects. Still the builders of the house must not necessarily be
traced in the central areas of manufacture of the bronze objects or directly related to the
bronze trade. The house may represent some other form and direction of contacts. The
Rieskaronmäki long-house has, for example, been included in a discussion of the special
contacts between east and west within the Bothnian region, suggesting that parallels
can be found in more northern parts of the Gulf of Bothnia (Forsberg 1999: Fig. 20, 275,
281-284). One Finnish example referred to in this dicussion is the Vitmossen settlement
site in Vöyri, southern Ostrobothnia, where an oblong area cleared of stones is encircled
by a structure reminiscent of the wall fundaments of a house. Whether this actually
could be the remains of a house is not certain. The Vitmossen site is dated to the time of
the Kiukainen Culture or the Early Bronze Age (Kotivuori 1993: 19-21).

263
Finnish Early Iron Age buildings like, if not long-houses? This is a question not
easily answered as there is very little information concerning Finnish Early Iron
Age buildings in general, and the few cases that can be described form at first sight
a heterogeneous group difficult to interpret. One type of building remains occurs in
the form of stone foundations for huts.134 Another type is building remains revealed
by post-holes and burnt clay daub. In one case, Mikkelä in Espoo, the distribution
of clay daub has been analysed statistically, and the result has been interpreted
as indicating the presence of a four-sided structure (Hiekkanen & Seger 1988).
In most cases the distribution of daub alone cannot be used for interpretations
of house forms. It is thus the post-holes that have to be used for interpretation in
cases where stone constructions (fundaments) or other indications of size and form
of the building are not present.
Two rectangular houses or longhouses from the Late Bronze Age or the Early
Iron Age have been identified on the basis of post-holes. These are house A at the
Ketohaka 1 site in Salo (e.g. Uino 1986: 85-89), and the Kaunismäki house remains
in Harjavalta (Meinander 1954a: 17–25). House A at Ketohaka 1 has been dated to

134
Such remains have been investigated at Trofastbacken (Seger 1986a) and Orrmoan
(Seger 1986b) in Mustasaari (cf. Seger 1986c). Both of these sites have been interpreted
as temporary sealing camps (Seger 1987). The Trofastbacken site has yielded Morby
Ware, and one radiocarbon date of 2300 ± 110 BP (Su-1485; Seger 1986a: 180–181), i.e.
800-50 cal BC, confirms that the site dates to the Late Bronze Age or the Pre-Roman
Iron Age. A comparable date of 2220 ± 70 (Su-1486; Seger 1986b: 26–30), i.e. 400-90
cal BC, is available from the Orrmoan site. Both sites lay on islands. Another stone
foundation, in semicircular shape, has been investigated at the Panelia Kuninkaanhauta
site in Kiukainen. A pit-shaped hearth lay within the circle and was radiocarbon dated
to 2470 ± 110 BP (Hel-2538), i.e. 850-350 cal BC. The structure was interpreted as a
hut foundation (Purhonen & Ranta 1991: 148–149). When the excavations were later
continued, additional stone structures were found (Purhonen & Ranta 1994: 103). A hut
foundation with a hearth, encircled by a stone construction, has also been excavated
at the Sundom Djupkärrsbacken settlement site in Vaasa. A radiocarbon date from the
fireplace places it in the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Miettinen 1994a: 163–164). There is also
some information concerning a possible hut structure cleared in a stony area at the
Petolahti Brännskogen site in Maalahti, and a similar structure has been identified at the
Tallmossen B site in the same area (Miettinen 1982: 41–46; 1989: 103; 1994a: 162–163). For
comparison, the remains of a building with a stone foundation excavated in northern
Finland at Jatulinsaari in Kemijärvi (Siiriäinen 1964) may be mentioned. The building is
considered to be of an Early Iron Age date, but a more detailed dating is problematic.
A socketed axe and a finger ring have been used to support a dating to the Late Roman
Iron Age or the Migration Period (Carpelan 1976: 32), but radiocarbon dates from the
site give a broad range between 1500 BC and 600 AD (Nuñez & Uino 1998: 144). Other
hut remains identified through the presence of stone structures are also known from
northern Finland, some of which might date from the Early Iron Age (Carpelan 1976).
Furthermore one should remember the Late Bronze Age hut foundations at Otterböte
in the Åland Islands (e.g. Meinander 1954b: 121-136; Gustavsson 1998). Regardless
of whether they were built by local people or foreigners they are morphologically
reminiscent of hut fundaments in other parts of the Finnish coast.

264
the last centuries BC or the beginning of the Roman Iron Age (Uino 1986: 93–94;
Hirviluoto 1991: 73–74). This partly destroyed house was identified on the basis of
post-holes, interpreted as representing the wall posts of a rectangular house with
the approximate dimensions of 10 x 6 m. Other post-holes in the area have either
been impossible to interpret or represent the remains of younger buildings. In the
case of the house remains at Ketohaka 1, however, both the interpretation of the
house shapes (Liedgren 1989: 39, Fig. 6a–b) and the chronology are problematic (cf.
Nuñez & Uino 1998: 146–147).
Neither is the Kaunismäki longhouse without problems. The site is dated to
the Late Bronze Age on the basis of the pottery found (Meinander 1954a: 17–25;
Salo 1970: 14–17; cf. Uino 1986: 140–141). Together with the Rieskaronmäki house,
Kaunismäki has been regarded as one of the most important archaeological sites
of the coastal Bronze Age culture (Salo 1984a: 117, 119), probably because it has
been seen as an embodiment of the appearance of the rectangular or longhouse
type of building during the Late Bronze Age. Special attention has been paid to a 7
metre-long row of post-holes. Whether this single strip of posts is evidence enough
to indicate a Scandinavian (or other form of) longhouse can be questioned. It has
actually been suggested that the Kaunismäki post-holes just as well could have
belonged to some other type of building, where the main characteristics are certain
dimensions of the structure (Fig. 111). The idea is based on other indications of
post-built constructions, more hut-like than in the shape of a longhouse, found at
a few Early Metal Period sites (Asplund 2002). These constructions seem to have
had a double construction containing an inner structure of roof-supporting posts
and an outer structure of posts supporting the walls. The inner posts lie about 3
metres apart, while the diameter or the breadth of the whole construction is about
6-7 metres. A more detailed interpretation of the building shape is not possible. The
buildings may have been round, polygonal or even rectangular; moreover the main
structure may have been extended or supplemented by additional parts, further
complicating the interpretation of building types (Asplund 2002: Fig. 10-11).135

135
The idea of Early Iron Age hut-like buildings based on pole constructions has been
criticized by Muurimäki (2004: 139-140). He has understood the main point, i.e. the
questioning of whether there is evidence of Early Iron Age Scandinavian-type long-
houses in Finland. What is slightly misunderstood is whether the proposed hut-like
buildings are always round – this is actually questioned also in the original article, where
circles mainly show dimensions of the proposed inner and outer structures. Otherwise
Muurimäki’s (2004) criticism is good, pointing out, for example, that a circle always
can be drawn through three points (thus creating an optical illusion where even rows
of post-holes becomes part of a round structure) and that rows of post-holes (or whole
parts of buildings) may extend outside the borders of excavation areas. Muurimäki’s
final point seems to be – with reference to Scandinavian long-houses with rounded ends
– that the post-hole structures still may be parts of long-houses.

265
 Fig. 111. Fireplace, coloured soil and post-holes at Kaunismäki in
Harjavalta; redrawn from Meinander (1954a: Fig. 10). The diameters of
the concentric circles added are 3 and 7 metres (cf. Asplund 2002: Fig. 9).

The best preserved Early Iron Age building remains identified through groups
of post-holes have been discovered at the Borgmästars Storåker site in Karjaa and
the Böle site in Porvoo. The Borgmästars site is difficult to date properly, since finds
associated with the structures are sparse; striated ceramics, however, suggest a Pre-
Roman or Roman Period date (Uino 1986: 146). The Böle excavation area yielded
Morby Ware (Meinander 1954b: 164–165, Tafel 25a), as well as textile impressed
ware and asbestos tempered ware.
At Borgmästars a couple of fireplaces were discovered between two rows of post-
holes about 7 metres long (Uino 1986: 146, Fig. 7:9; cf. Honkanen 1981: 14–15, 112),
possibly indicating some kind of longer house construction. These posts as well as
another post-hole feature at Borgmästars have been interpreted as representing the
remains of two "rectangular house-floors" (Uino 1986: 168). There is, however, no
additional information as to what size or kind of buildings these may have been.
More interesting is a pattern resembling two concentric circles of post-holes around
a hearth. This post-hole pattern resembles the arrangement at Böle (Meinander
1954b: Fig. 91), where, again, a double construction can be identified – perhaps an
inner structure of roof-support posts and an outer structure of posts supporting the

266
walls. The inner posts in both cases lie about 3 metres apart, while the diameter of
the whole construction is about 6 metres in the Borgmästars case and about 7 metres
in the Böle case (cf. Asplund 2002: Fig. 2-3). Based on post-holes outside the main
construction, the Böle building has been been interpreted as having a rectangular
antechamber in addition to the otherwise round construction (Meinander 1954b:
162; Uino 1986: 154; Nuñez & Uino 1998: 147). Post-holes also occur at some other
sites, often in the vicinity of fireplaces. None of these cases are as distinctive as the
ones described above, but a few could in principle be explained as based on the
same pattern and dimensions.136
One important, more recently excavated site with Early Iron Age building
remains is the Hulkkio site in Kaarina, where the extensive excavation areas revealed
numerous post-holes (Strandberg 1998; 2002: 218-221). The interpretation of the
several identified buildings has been based chiefly on the distribution of different
types of daub and the position of the post-holes and other structures. A major
problem seems to be that only some 4.5 kg of burnt daub has been recovered. The
problem of interpretation is further accentuated by the fact that two quite different
interpretations of the location of the buildings at the site have been presented. The

136
A combination of a fireplace and post-holes at the Kärsämäki site in Turku (formerly
Maaria) is difficult to interpret. The broad dating of this construction is based on the
Morby Ware found in a nearby fireplace. Earlier, the focus of scholars was decisively
on the discernible rows of posts, and the size of the building was thus suggested to be
4 x 5 metres (Nuñez & Uino 1998: 146; cf. Uino 1986: 150). However, this case could also
be explained through the same pattern and dimensions as in the Borgmästars and Böle
cases, i.e., that some of the posts might have been part of an inner structure and some
of an outer structure of the same dimensions as described above (Asplund 2002: Fig. 4).
Another example of the remains of a post-built structure associated with a fireplace and
containing Morby Ware is found at the Kirkkomäki site in Turku, excavated in 1992.
In this case the structure was badly damaged by ploughing and by a later cemetery at
the site. Near the fireplace seven stained spots, interpreted as the possible remains of
post-holes, formed a group, within which a light-grey area of stained soil was preserved
(Asplund 2002: Fig. 5). The dimensions of this structure may indicate an inner structure
as in the Borgmästars and Böle cases, but no traces of an outer structure were found.
It is also unclear in what way the fireplace might have been associated with the post-
built construction; if it is part of the same building it seems not to have been at the
centre of the structure. The fireplace is radiocarbon dated to 2395 ± 35 BP (GrN-25136).
The hypothetical interpretation of a hearth and post-holes at the Borgmästars 1951
excavation area may show a similar fireplace location (cf. Uino 1986: Fig. 7:8). Here
postholes around an area of stained soil seem to match the dimensions of an outer
structure, but only a hint of the inner roof supporting posts can be seen (Asplund 2002:
Fig. 6). In this case, again, the association of the hearth and the post-holes is, of course,
quite problematic, since there is no evidence that they are contemporaneous.

267
common feature of all of the hypothetical buildings is, however, that they represent
a shape resembling the Scandinavian longhouse.137 Doubts have been raised
concerning the interpretation of the houses also by Muurimäki (2004: 139). He has
pointed out that the post-holes are randomly distributed within (and outside) the
proposed houses. He also wonders about the small amount of burned clay; daub
should have been preserved as clay layers or lenses if the houses were not destroyed
by fire. Thus it seems that not a single one of the proposed longhouses at Hulkkio
can be taken for granted. There is, however, one group of post-holes matching the
model of inner and outer structures with certain dimensions, which can be found
at excavation area B at Hulkkio (Asplund 2002: Fig. 7-8). Here some post-holes
surrounding an area of stained soil may represent an inner structure and other
outlying post-holes the outer structure of the appropriate dimensions (Fig. 112). In
the earlier interpretation of Area B the same posts have been regarded as forming a
small part of a large longhouse (Strandberg 1998: Fig. 6; 2002: Fig. 11).138
New observations related to Pre-Roman building remains have also been
obtained in connection with excavations performed at the Böle site in 1997. The
revealed features have been interpreted as including the remains of two rectangular
houses with rounded corners; the dimensions of the houses would have been 9 x 7
m and 11 x 7,5 m (Standberg 2002: 221-223). The reliability of the interpretation is
difficult to confirm as the published excavation map (Strandberg 2002: Fig 12) does
not show identifiable constructions like rows of post-holes, stone constructions
or other marks indicating on what basis the potential houses were outlined.
Furthermore it can be noted that if the scale added to the published map is correct,
the dimensions of the drawn houses do not fit the dimensions mentioned in the
text. If the width of the buildings however were 7 or 7.5 metres, it would fit the
proposed basic dimensions of the Early Iron Age huts discussed above. The inner

137
In a similar fashion, though somewhat more source critically, features at the Naaran­
kalmanmäki site in Lempäälä have been interpreted. Here a group of postholes occurred
mainly within an area about 6 x 8 metres wide, in addition to which a lot of features
containing stained soil occurred. Different suggestions involving possibilities of one
or several constructions of different sizes have been discussed, but the interpretation
presented on the general maps of the site is the one involving a 23-25 metre longhouse
(Raike & Seppälä 2005). The features of Naarankalmanmäki – including the building
remains – are mainly dated to the Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period.
138
In connection with the reinterpretation of the structure at area B, it has been pointed
out that there is also a four-sided stained structure present at the area, somewhat
reminiscent of the four-sided building remains previously known mainly in inland
Stone Age contexts (Asplund 2002: 231). This possible structure has not been discussed
further. A combination of different forms of building remains would, however, be highly
interesting, as Hulkkio is a site with a finds assemblage containing a mixture of coastal
and inland ceramics (cf. Strandberg 1996).

268
 Fig. 112. Post-holes surrounding an area of stained soil at Excavation Area
B at the Hulkkio site in Kaarina. Redrawn from the excavation report. The
diameters of the concentric circles added are 3 and 7 metres (cf. Asplund
2002; Fig. 8).

and outer post-hole structures suggested to be typical for this type of buildings are
unfortunately not possible to identify in the new material from Böle – at least not
on the basis of the publication.
Regardless of the small and seemingly heterogeneous material, it has been
suggested that there may be common traits with respect to dimensions and probably
also construction techniques within the group of Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age post-supported buildings (Asplund 2002). The hut-like buildings of the type
discussed above seem more primitive than actual rectangular houses, but they
are not particularly small, as the floor area exceeds 30 m2. Thus the construction
technique must have been fairly developed. This might well have been one basic
form of building in southern and southwestern Finland in the Early Iron Age. What
seems to be important is that these buildings are not Scandinavian longhouses, but
could represent a type for which no good parallels exist in Scandinavian or East
Baltic materials. Round or rounded houses from the Bronze Age or the Early Iron
Age seldom occur in Scandinavia. Remains of one house from the Late Bronze Age
site Stafsinge 116 in western Sweden is maybe the best Scandinavian parallel to the
building type discussed above, but it is somewhat bigger and there are only four
roof-supporting posts (Nicklasson 2001: 35-38). In the East Baltic area, on the other

269
hand, Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age house remains are often identified on
the basis of post-holes, but they are usually interpreted as belonging to four-sided
houses.139
The development of building types from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age and
Early Iron Age still remains unclear. When the modest traces of buildings from the
Early Iron Age are compared with some of the house-like constructions present
in inland Stone Age contexts, one cannot help thinking that the earlier idea of
development should be inverted. It actually seems that one line of development
might have been from big rectangular Stone Age houses to huts of the Early Iron
Age, and not the other way around (Asplund 2002). One problem with such a
model is, however, that the Stone Age building type of the coastal area is not as well
known as that of the inland. It is possible that the rectangular Stone Age building
type flourished and prevailed mainly in the inland area and the north, while other
shapes developed on the southern and western coasts.
In discussing the development of new building types in the Bronze Age or Iron
Age, the importance of economic factors – especially the growing importance of
farming – has often been stressed. With this in mind, it is interesting to note that
changes also took place in areas where agriculture was not adopted. It may seem
a farfetched example, but in northern Norway the large houses of the Gressbacken
type fell out of use during this time. Among the reasons for this change may have
been increased mobility as well as new social and economic conditions (Olsen 1994:
135). The excavated buildings at the Slettnes settlement sites are also intriguing,

139
A thorough discussion on the East Baltic material has been provided earlier by Uino
(1986: 169, 176, 180–183). Examples of Lithuanian cases include the four-sided houses
reconstructed on the basis of post-holes at Narkūnai and Kereliai (Grigalavičienė 1995:
47–49). One example from south-eastern Latvia is the open settlement site Kerkūzi,
where a pole-construction is found in the oldest buildings, dated to the Late Bronze
Age; in one case the size of the house was 4 x 4 metres (Vasks 1994b; Vasks 1995: 60, 73).
The later building phases all included different types of log houses. Those dating from
the last quarter of the first millennium BC were identified by the contours of a dark
cultural layer; here, too, the dimensions of one measurable house were 4 x 4 metres
(Vasks 1995: 73). In Estonia no Early Iron Age house remains have been identified at
open settlements; the only examples derive from fortified contexts. One interesting
detail is the remains of log houses built with a corner-jointed technique. This practice
has been recorded at the Koila hill-fort (Schmidehelm 1983: 165, Kuva 148; cf. Uino 1986:
169, 180) and at the Late Bronze Age fortified settlement Iru in northern Estonia (Lang
1996: 38–39, Plate II:2). This is interesting as indications of this technique are practically
unknown in coastal Finnish Bronze Age or Early Iron Age contexts, but it was later to
become the prevalent mode of building. The earliest Iron Age feature interpreted as the
remains of a log building, at the Ketohaka 2 site in Salo, can be dated to the 4th century
AD. There is a four-sided streak of discoloured soil also at the Ketohaka 1 site, which
can possibly be dated to the middle of the first millennium BC, but the interpretation
of this feature as deriving from a log building has been regarded uncertain (Uino 1986:
179).

270
since their size seems to diminish towards the Iron Age. The Late Neolithic buildings
were still large and rectangular in shape, but in the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age smaller oval and round buildings occur (Hesjedal et al. 1996: 222–229). These
changes in the types of houses must be related in one way or another to changes in
the size of the family or social group sharing the house.
One difference between the Scandinavian type longhouse and the building of
the Borgmästars and Böle type is that the latter lacks any signs of a byre. If this was
a common way of living in southwestern Finland during the Early Metal Period,
it probably means that cattle were not regularly kept inside the house during the
winter, as has been suggested (e.g. Salo 1997: 84).140 This has earlier been questioned
also in the light of ethnographic evidence from northern Europe (Uino 1986:
192). Keeping animals inside the house just due to climatic conditions (and for
the collection of dung) is not necessarily the only explanation for the occurrence
of byres. All traditional forms of livestock can in principle stand outwintering if
using shelters and taken care of properly (and dung could be collected otherwise,
if regarded important) (Zimmermann 1999).141 Regular indoor stalling – a change
in the relationship between people and their animals – might have evolved due
to other reasons, such as, for example, cattle being associated with status (Barker
1999; Rasmussen 1999: 286-287; cf. Olausson 1993). Still, if the Finnish Early Metal
period buildings lacked specifically built byres, this does not mean that animals
were not kept or that herds did not represent status. Most probably animals were
regarded as important and thus representative of welfare and prosperity, but as it
seems, this was not manifested in the form of the building.

140
In the Rieskaronmäki house, it has suggested that one end of the house was a byre.
Another feature discussed in connection with stalling is a stone pavement possibly
datable to the Late Neolithic or the Bronze Age, excavated at the Uotinmäki site
in Kiukainen. With reference to Bronze Age parallels it has been suggested that the
pavement was part of a house and probably a byre (Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 62).
141
One positive effect of having the animals inside during wintertime may, however, have
been the warmth produced by the animals and the accumulating dung. Due to this, the
same space – regardless of being a proper byre or not – could have been actively used
during wintertime by the family for other purposes as well (Vilkuna 1976: 20-21).

271
5.5. Climate and environment

5.5.1. An ecotonal shift?

Up till the 1970’s, many North-European archaeologists spoke of a probable crisis

at the mid-first millennium BC at the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron
Age. The rich archaeological material from the Bronze Age was seen in contrast to
that of the Early Iron Age. Some scholars saw the crisis as the result of an internal
development, provoked primarily by changing climatic conditions. The period was
interpreted as involving a sudden transition to a moister and colder climate. Since
then, the idea of a major crisis has been re-evaluated and mostly abandoned, but
the fact remains that climatic fluctuations did occur during the period in question.
These fluctuations, known from different types of proxy data, are not easy to figure
out as different studies focus on different types of materials and give somewhat
incompatible results.142 In order to understand the large-scale pattern of climate
transformations, an illustrative presentation by Crumley (1995) has proved helpful.
Her starting point is that ecotones, i.e. boundaries between biomes and communities
of organisms, show high correlations with the position of climate-driven air-mass
activity. In the case of Europe, three major climatic regimes strongly related to biotic
provinces can be distinguished: 1) the Oceanic (Atlantic), carrying moisture inland
from the ocean, 2) the Mediterranean, bringing dry, desert winds northward, and 3)
the Continental, carrying dry air west from the interior (Crumley 1995: 125-127).
From around 1200 BC to about 500 BC there is evidence from everywhere
in Europe which, according to Crumley (1995: 128), indicates a cold period of
particularly severe winters. The Atlantic climatic regime continued to bring
moisture to northwestern Europe – particularly wet conditions are indicated in
this area between 750 and 500 BC. The increased water level in lakes indicating
increased precipitation during this period has been documented in southern
Sweden, for example, but has been indicated in Finland as well (Eronen 2002: 68).
The picture regarding moisture is, however, not quite clear. For example, peat
humification analyses from two raised bogs in Värmland, south-central Sweden,

142
In climate research, a proxy variable is data gathered from natural records of climate
variability, e.g. tree rings, ice cores, palynological data, ocean sediments etc. Information
of this kind is called ‘proxy data’ because it acts as a proxy for the actual changes of
climate.

272
indicate a prominent dry period about 2700-2250 cal BP (Borgmark 2005). In this
case, the periodicity seems to be close to that of other proxy records, but perhaps
due to the analysed material or local circumstances the climate effect turns out
differently. This is comparable to parts of central Europe, where the ecotone pattern
resulted in severe drought (cf. Jäger & Ložek 1982). This is due to the effects of the
continental regime as the ecotone between wet northwest Europe and dry central
Europe was somewhere in what is now southern Germany.
By 300 BC and lasting until 300 AD there was a change in climatic conditions:
the Mediterranean climatic regime became dominant over a large part of southern
Europe, resulting in hot, dry summers and winter rains. The ecotone between the
Atlantic and Continental regimes and the Mediterranean climatic regime may
have reached as far north as northern France and the southern coast of the Baltic
Sea (Crumley 1995: 128, Figure 3). Between AD 500 and approximately AD 900,
according to Crumley (1995: 129), the climate could be characterised as unstable.
The ecotone between the Mediterranean, the Atlantic and the Continental systems
shifted back far to the south, lying along the northern fringe of the African continent.
In northern Europe the Atlantic regime dominated, resulting in cold snowy winters,
cool wet summers, frosts and floods.
Within the framework of these ecotonal shifts, Crumley tries to explain (or at
least discuss) long-term cultural developments in Europe in an environmental
deterministic fashion. During the Roman period the Mediterranean agricultural
economy, featuring extensive production of relatively few crops, spread through
central Europe, probably not entirely due to Roman conquests. The Celtic system
of multi-species agriculture and pastoralism, much more suited to an uncertain
climate, disappeared (Crumley 1995: 130). According to Crumley, the later
reappearance of the more characteristically European climatic pattern probably led
to problematic adjustments in agriculture, as knowledge of the old system had
already been lost. A period of unstable conditions may have led to the challenge
of traditional authority and the emergence of the new socio-political structures
familiar from historical sources.
This discussion, of course, also has some relevance for northernmost Europe.
A favourable ‘ecotonal shift’ during the late Pre-Roman Iron Age could have
affected the possibilities of farming and the general mode of subsistence. What
is problematic, however, is that agrarian communities actually seem to have
expanded around the Baltic during the whole of the last millennium BC. If the
earlier change into a more unfavourable ecotonal pattern did lead to changes in
settlement and subsistence, this apparently did not take the form of a dramatic
crisis. Unfavourable environmental effects related to the Bronze Age (changes
interpreted as a drop in average temperatures and a probable increase in annual

273
rainfall) have more lately been considered seriously mainly in the south-eastern
Baltic area. Even with regard to this area, however, other explanations have also
been foregrounded within settlement archaeology.
According to one view, climate deterioration in northern Poland may have led
to noticeable changes in settlement patterns and in methods of land exploitation.
The assumed increase in rainfall would have caused a rise in the water table in
lakes and rivers over the entire lowland zone of the Oder and Vistula basins. The
water may have rose so sharply that the land lying close to large bodies of water
was abandoned (Ostoja-Zagórski 1989a: 18). This hypothesis is supported by
archaeological evidence of sites of the Lusatian culture being buried under mineral
deposits containing quantities of humus and fractions typical of soils in drainage
areas. The climatic changes were accompanied by surface outwashing of the soils,
and the vegetation underwent economically significant changes. The general idea
of the hypothesis is that economic activity among the populations inhabiting the
territories of northern Poland during the final phase of the Bronze Age coincided
with a complex series of climatic and ecological transformations. According to
Ostoja-Zagórski (1989a; cf. 1989b), we can assume that unfavourable changes in
environmental conditions must have had considerable effect on the direction of
changes that occurred both in settlement structure and in the socio-economic
system at the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. Interpretations of
the relative weight of causes of change, however, seems to vary. In a more recent
discussion (Harding & Ostoja-Zagórski 1993), the impact of environmental factors
has been left in the background and social and economic processes underscored.
Ideas of environment-induced change have also been presented in the case
of Latvia, where changes in the development of settlement occurred during the
Bronze Age. This can be seen especially in the formerly densely populated Lubāna
lowlands, where only 10 out of 23 Late Neolithic or Early Bronze Age settlements
survived into the Late Bronze Age (Vasks 1994a: 113). Two explanations have
been given for this development. One is a rise in the water level, accompanied
by the spread of marshes in the lowlands. Due to these circumstances there was
a movement of settlement, including the settling of previously unoccupied areas.
Single finds – especially simple shaft-hole axes – show expansion to moraine ridges
and areas of raised relief of various sorts outside the lowland area during the
Bronze Age (Vasks 1994a: 113, 120). On the other hand, the period of change seems
to coincide with changes in the economy as hunting, fishing and gathering were
replaced by stock-keeping and agriculture. This meant that previous settlements
and their surroundings were now less suitable for settlement. It has even been
suggested that one reason for the development of food production (in addition to
population increase) in Latvia and neighbouring countries would have been that

274
the cold and more humid climate would have decreased the amount of available
wild food (Graudonis 2001).
Instead of a crisis, the period characterised by the cold wet ‘Atlantic ecotone’
witnessed the intensification of agriculture. Despite this, the conclusion that the
cooler climate did in fact speed up the development is probably taken too far.
Instead the long-term development of farming gradually continued throughout
the period, despite times of harsher conditions. In some remote areas or areas in
the early stages of the development of farming, as in the case of southwestern
Finland, one could assume that development may have slowed down, compared
to what it would have been during a period of more suitable climate. Whether the
subsequent more favourable climatic change (above dated to the Pre-Roman Iron
Age) later accelerated the development, or otherwise affected societies around the
northern part of the Baltic, is not quite clear, but it seems plausible that this could
have happened both locally and through foreign contacts. Locally, farming would
have benefited from the possibility of getting bigger yields. An indirect effect may
have been intensified trade and contacts, promoted by a more stable economical
and political structure in Central Europe.

5.5.2. Environmental proxy data: some examples and problems

In the 1970’s, studies of peat growth and transgressions in Denmark based on

radiocarbon chronology indicated possible cyclical climatic variations lasting
about 260 years (cf. Barber 1982: 109). This periodicity, however, was not general, as
in some cases there was a double distance between registrations of climatic change.
This periodicity has been approached in various ways. First of all, the boundary
horizons identified in peatlands were regarded as indications of changes in the
moisture of the environment. Wetness, however, may reflect a complex combination
of temperature, humidity, precipitation and even wind speed (Charman & Mäkilä
2003: 16). This is still a problem regarding many proxy data records – climate
change may involve variations in both temperature and moisture, often difficult
to interpret separately. According to the general view there is evidence of a fall in
summer temperatures during the first millennium BC. The cyclic data, however,
do not suggest a constantly falling trend but several oscillations. At first there
seemed to be no clear correlation between information from different wetlands in
various parts of Europe (Barber 1982). It has also been pointed out that the periodic
changes show surprisingly little correlation with the archaeological record (Jensen
1994: 111).

275
 More lately, periodicities of proxy data have again gained interest, due to
comparisons with athmospheric residual 14C-records picturing variations in
solar activity. The idea is that changes in the carbon cycle are dependent on solar
variability, galactic cosmic ray influx and/or geomagnetic field strength. The
hypothesis according to which variations in solar activity were a major factor of
climatic oscillations in Europe during the Holocene has gained more and more
support (e.g. Goslar 2003; Blaauw et al. 2004; Borgmark 2005: 393; Holzhauser et al.
2005: 797-798). Either the climatic changes have been directly linked with temporal
changes in atmospheric 14C-records or the studies refer to cycles with periodicities
close to those of solar variability. For example, rapid major increases in atmospheric
14
C, as during the ‘Little Ice Age’ or during the Late Bronze Age, have been attributed
to decreases in solar activity.
Numerous reconstructions based on different types of proxy data have been
made, which exemplify climate change. For example, investigations of raised bogs in
The Netherlands indicate wet-shifts corresponding to periods of major atmospheric
14
C-rise. Such periods have been recorded for 1465-1365, 845-755 and 415-345 cal
BC, the period 845-755 coeval with a major climatic change recorded in many proxy
records around the world (Blaauw et al. 2004). The periodicity indicated in the
study of two bogs in Värmland (already referred to in the previous chapter) does
not, however, seem to match the Dutch results, with the exception of a major dry
shift at about 2700 cal BP. Wetter shifts were in this case indicated at 3700-3500 and
2250 cal BP, for example (Borgmark 2005). A somewhat better correlation is found
regarding glaciers in the Swiss Alps, which show nearly synchronous advances at
about 1000-600 BC (as well as 500-600 AD, 800-900 AD, 1100-1200 AD and 1300-
1860 AD); these glacier fluctuations furthermore show strong correspondence with
lake-level variations reconstructed in eastern France (Holzhauser et al. 2005). The
correlation between different sets of data is, however, on a quite general level. What
seems evident already from a few examples is that no overall European climatic
reconstruction with detailed precision can be presented. Local climate may vary
and thus produce different effects to be recorded, or the climate proxy data may
turn out differently in different regions (e.g. Holmgren 2005).
Sometimes climate reconstructions are, on the other hand, left extremely broad.
For example, an interesting analysis of the oxygene-isotope ratio in diatome
biogenic silica from lake sediments from Swedish Lapland has been presented
merely as a methodological study. The results are noted to resemble the average air
temperature reconstructed for a Greenland ice core, especially during the past 4000
years, with a double peak between 4000 and 2000 cal BP and a pronounced cooling
starting at about 2000 cal BP (Shemesh et al. 2001). This is, however, a rather coarse
picture. In fact the oxygene-isotope ratio curve shows fluctuations that seem to

276
correlate rather well with more detailed climate variations detected in other proxy
records, like the pine tree-limit altitude in northern Scandinavia (cf. Shemesh et al.
2001: Fig. 5). Within both of these records the Late Bronze Age decline is visible as
well as an Early Iron Age period of more favourable climate.
One potential means of studying detailed climatological variations in the past is
the use of dendrochronology, where tree ring widths can to some extent be regarded
as representing weather conditions. Promising Finnish results concerning the
technique of estimating past climatic conditions have been presented by Lindholm
et al. (1995). The series studied cover the 19th and 20th centuries and originate from
the coniferous tree limit in Finnish Lapland, where tree growth is a good indicator
of past climatic variations. The study shows quite close agreement between the
estimated and observed values of July temperatures (Lindholm et al. 1995: 96-100).
From this recent comparison, however, it is a long step to the reconstruction of
prehistoric climate. Other studies have indicated that there is no direct correlation
between temperature or precipitation and the radial growth of trees (Pilcher &
Hughes 1982). The best correlation with climate is found in extreme areas, as in the
Finnish example.
The pine tree-ring series from Finnish Lapland covering about 7500 years gives
a possibility for studying prehistoric summer temperature fluctuations. As far as
the Early Iron Age is concerned, it seems evident that the Pre-Roman Iron Age
does not form an uniform climate period. There are fluctuations indicating cooler
summer temperatures during the early part of the period, and warmer summers
during the middle part; centennial cool periods in the series, like 484-385 BC, are
noted to correlate with glacier advances in northern Sweden (Helama et al. 2002:
684-685; cf. Eronen et al. 2003). Also indicated is another cooler period pre-dating the
Roman Iron Age. With regard to the early Pre-Roman Iron Age, the most extreme
decrease of growth visible in the long-term series occurred in the year 330 BC
when there was practically no growth at all (Eronen 2002: 71; cf. Helama et al. 2002:
Table 4). The recovery seems to have taken 20-30 years. There is so far no single
explanation for the phenomenon, but it must in some way be related to climate or
other severe changes in the environment. The impact must have been significant as
such dramatic changes cannot be seen in the growth of pine during the historically
documented periods of unfavourable climate oscillations from about 1550 to 1850
AD (Eronen 2002: 69-71).
Another form of detailed proxy records for reconstructions of past climate
and environmental change are varved lake sediments, which due to the annually
accumulated varves contain a continuous calendar-year timescale, comparable
to that of dendrochronological series. This increases the chronological precision
compared to other lake- or peat-samples as the varved sediment time-scale is

277
more reliable than simply radiocarbon dated series (or even ones with wiggle-
matched datings for high precision). Varved sediments have also provided a
possibility of constructing palaeomagnetic master curves, which can be used for
further stratigraphic correlation and age control (Ojala & Saarinen 2002). Climate
reconstructions from varved sediments are based on the physical properties of the
sediment, which is mostly dependent on the annual influx of mineral matter into
the basin. As this is above all related to climatic conditions that prevail over the
winter months – primarily temperature and the amount of snow – varved lake
sediments best reflect variations in winter climate (Ojala et al. 2003: 11).
Solantie (2005) has especially highlighted one varved lake sediment site, Lake
Nautajärvi, in the interior of Finland. The sediment series from Lake Nautajärvi
is so far the longest continuous varved record in Fennoscandia, covering nearly
10 000 years (Ojala & Saarinen 2002; Ojala & Alenius 2005). With reference to a
short paper by Ojala et al. (2003), Solantie has used data on the accumulation of
mineral and organic matter as a basis for a discussion on past climate change. In
his opinion, the Lake Nautajärvi data indicates particularly mild winters during
the period 4000 to 3200 BC, after which a period of variable winter climate then
followed till 2300 BC. The winter temperatures had minima around 3100 and 2500
BC, and favorable maxima around 2800 and 2300 BC; after that the temperature
fell rather steadily until 500 BC. After a short, slightly milder, period (less secure
than the two earlier) the lowest winter temperatures were reached around 100 BC.
If taking the interpretation of Solantie literally it thus seems that the Pre-Roman
Iron Age would coincide with a short milder period of winter climate, which in
the late Pre-Roman Iron Age turned into a cooler phase. Solantie (2005: 29; cf. Ojala
et al. 2003: 12) points out, however, that these conclusions are somewhat risky, as
the flux of mineral matter into the basin is dependent on many interacting factors,
obviously not all of them dependent on the climate. Furthermore, the diagram
showing the accumulation of minerogenic and organic matter in Lake Nautajärvi
(cf. Ojala et al. 2003: Fig 3) seem to indicate not one but two fluctuations during the
period in question.
Solantie has used the Late Nautajärvi data to explain features of southwestern
Finnish settlement and subsistence since the Middle Neolithic. According to him,
the cooling of the Finnish climate since 2800 BC may have caused the gradual
retreat southwestward of the Battle Axe Culture as well as subsequent western
Finnish cultures, so that at the beginning of the Iron Age AD western Finnish
settlement was to be found only on the southwestern coast. Solantie especially
emphasizes the cooling of winters, leading to a longer period of permanent snow
cover and problems with regard to the collection of winter hay fodder for cattle.
Solantie (2005: 37) also reaches the conclusion that cultivation could have been

278
only a secondary livelihood till the end of the Early Roman Iron Age. The whole
scenario seems a little too simplistic, considering that it is mainly based on just
one proxy record. As stated and explained above, a reconstruction of the whole
climate pattern is extremely difficult and would require the analysis and critical
comparison of several types of proxy data. What seems very risky is to combine the
mineral matter influx with temperature alone, as variations in the snow cover are
dependent on precipitation as well.
With regard to the Early Iron Age, the most interesting feature in the Lake
Nautajärvi series is the double fluctuations during the Pre-Roman Iron Age. This
periodicity seems comparable to that of other proxy records, like the tree-ring series
from Finnish Lapland (Helama et al. 2002; Eronen et al. 2003). What is surprising,
however, is that (following the general interpretation by Solantie) the correlation is
negative. If this really reflects climate, it thus might indicate cold summers and mild
winters during the early Pre-Roman Iron Age and a period of warm summers and
cold winters during its middle part, followed by a change back to cooler summers
and milder winters during the late Pre-Roman Iron Age. Within this reconstruction,
it should, however, be noted that “mild” and “cold” winters may actually represent
differences in precipitation in addition to variations of temperature. Yet again, the
interpretation is probably too straightforward, but interesting, as such a scenario
could contain elements of oscillations between different climatic regimes (Atlantic
and continental) if using the terminology by Crumley (1995). At the same time
the oscillations during the Early Iron Age, of course, challenge Crumley’s scheme
where the period 300 BC to 300 AD is presented as an uniform climate period.
Information concerning the environmental effects of climatic change can also be
obtained from pollen analyses, which depict both climatic conditions and human
activity. This has been discussed, for example, in the case of southern Scandinavia,
where indications of a moister climate are seen in the spread of beech and spruce.
During the first millennium BC, pollen analyses indicate more intense human
activity, hazel becoming less common, probably because of intensified land-use and,
above all, the greater pressure on grazing (Jensen 1994: 111). Similar results have
been obtained from various pollen analyses in Denmark and southern Sweden. In
Finland palynologists have usually discussed climate change just in general terms,
for example combining the diminishing fraction of deciduous tree pollen since the
Neolithic with the cooling of the climate. Regarding human activity, the growing
impact of agriculture can be seen since the Bronze Age, but on a much smaller
scale than in southern Scandinavia. The increasing impact during the Bronze Age
and the Early Iron Age is rather reflected in the increasing indications of sporadic
agriculture than as evidence of large-scale landscape change.

279
 In addition to pollen analysis, agricultural expansion has also been recorded
in lake sediments in the form of increased alkalic nutrition and minerals washed
out from nearby fields.143 In Scandinavia there are examples of both phenomena
beginning to occur during the Bronze Age (e.g. Welinder 1998: 38-40). In Finland
such indications have been discussed mainly regarding the Iron Age AD and the
Middle Ages (e.g. Tolonen et al. 1976; Alhonen 1978; Tolonen 1978b).
Summing up these examples and scattered thoughts, it is first of all important
to point out the indications of climate fluctuations during the Pre-Roman Iron
Age, meaning that the period was not uniform with regard to climate. It seems
that the most evident cooling in a long-term perspective happened during the
Late Bronze Age, while the Pre-Roman Iron Age probably saw periods of both
favourable and unfavourable climate. The beginning of the Iron Age coincides with
an unfavourable climate period, but – what is important – not with its beginning.
Furthermore, it also seems impossible at the moment to correlate other changes in
the archaeological (or palynological) record with recorded indications of climate
change during the Early Iron Age. If climate fluctuations during the Pre-Roman
Iron Age had an impact on settlement and subsistence, this can at present not be
distinguished with good enough precision as to correlate it with climate proxy data.
The Roman Period, on the other hand, evidenced changes indicating prosperity
and a new settlement pattern. Whether a more favourable climate could have had
a direct impact on the development is, however, uncertain. As already indicated in
the previous chapter, there are other possible explanations as well.
In a long-term perspective the continuous and even increasing land-use during
the first millennium BC in most areas around the Baltic suggests that climate
oscillations did not lead to major setbacks within agriculture. As referred to above, the
development in other geographical areas or within some distinctive environments,
like lowlands, may have been dissimilar. In the Netherlands (as in certain lowland
areas of the southern part of the Baltic), for example, one interpretation of the
changes in agriculture during the Late Bronze Age has been that it was due to
climate change (cf. Berglund 2005: 52; Holmgren 2005: 43; Widgren 2005: 63-66). In
Scandinavia, on the other hand, a strong view is that climate was not the driving
force behind changes in agriculture and settlement (Pedersen & Widgren 1998:
246-253; Widgren 2005). One point is that the vulnerability of the Late Bronze Age

143
Another possibility would be to study small-particle fallouts that indicate the extent of
wind erosion, i.e. the increase in the size of fields and open land. This would, however,
require lake sediments occurring in special ombrotrophic environments, with the
sample site pools situated in bogs. Under these conditions, the samples do not contain
outwashed minerals.

280
agriculture was still comparably low as it was based on a variation of resources,
farming included crop growing as well as cattle breeding, and the cultivated crops
were of several types. Steadily increasing exploitation, with no sudden changes,
can be seen in southern Scandinavia, especially in Denmark, reflecting a constantly
growing need for land (Jensen 1994: 114). Farming also developed in the East Baltic
area, as will be shown in the next chapter. In Finland, the environmental impact
of agriculture was still small, but the scattered evidence of cereal cultivation in the
form of Cerealia pollen seems to increase throughout the period.
This general long-term development does not exclude fallow years or shorter
periods of reduced harvest due to a difficult climate. Such climate effects could
have had something in common with the consequences known from historical
sources related to the ‘Little Ice Age’ from the late 16th century onwards. During
this period Finnish records show the decrease of harvest by at least a fifth, and
possibly by as much as a third. The decline is indicated both by the decrease in the
amount of tithes (cf. Orrman 1986: 193) and the reduced harvest yield calculated
from accounts of Crown estates (Tornberg 1989: 62-71). This comparison could
illustrate the effect within areas already practising developed agriculture. Along
the Finnish coast where field cultivation was still in a stage of development, effects
on the crops could have been more severe, but on the other hand, the economy was
probably more flexible and suited for adjustments year by year.

5.6. Food production

5.6.1. The development in the East Baltic area

5.6.1.1. Long-term background

When we start looking at cultural and economic development in closer detail, the
eastern part of the Baltic can be regarded as more important for this study than
that of Scandinavia or areas east of Finland. During the Pre-Roman and Roman
Iron Age, the Finnish material changed from forms indicating western influences
to ones reminiscent of the East Baltic area. This gives reason to assume a familiar
development in other aspects of the society and the economy as well.
In the East Baltic area, the first acquaintance with food production occurred
during the Middle Neolithic, about 3500-2900 BC, but agricultural land-use did not
become extensive until the second millennium BC (Lang 1998: 96-97). For the Middle
Neolithic (2900/2700 - 2300/2100 BC, uncalibrated), there is evidence of mixed
farming at a number of settlement sites belonging to the Narva Culture, although

281
the principal mode of subsistence was still hunting and gathering (Daugnora &
Girininkas 1995: 44; Griciuvienė 2000). At the same time there was also an increase
in the number of flint microlith blades, interpreted as belonging to scythes and used
for hay production. In the western and southwestern areas of the Narva ceramic
tradition, some finds – an ard from Sventoji 6, grains of hemp (Cannabis sativa)
and millet seeds (Panicum miliceum), for example – indicate a greater importance of
agriculture (Daugnora & Girininkas 1995, 44; Loze 1997b: 23-24).
In Latvia major changes in the economy seem to coincide with the Bronze Age,
but archaeological indications of the practice of agriculture already in the Middle
Neolithic have been discussed. Loze (1997a; 1997b) has seen the evidence of early
agriculture in the Lake Lubāna area represented in agricultural implements, such
as axes for slash-and-burn cultivation and harvesting and grinding implements,
as well as tools for spinning and processing the fibres of cannabis and flax. The
palynological and palaeobothanical evidence is sparse, represented by a single
pollen of barley (Loze 1997a: 40), and one grain of barley (Hordeum vulgare) found
at the Kreici site (Vasks 1999: 23). This suggests that cultivation was practised,
although some of the tools presented by Loze are not more than vague indications of
it. Loze (1997a: 40; 1997b: 24) suggests a model according to which the introduction
of farming was a local process of diffusion, involving influences from the Funnel
Beaker Culture; the further stimulation and intensification of agriculture during the
Late Neolithic resulted, however, from infiltration by small groups of immigrants
belonging to the Battle Axe Culture.
Vasks (1994a: 120-121; 1999: 30-31) has discussed the transition to a food
production economy in Latvia in terms of settlement density, a possible increase in
population, and the idea of the increased carrying capacity of the environment due
to food production. Indications of a developed agriculture can be seen especially in
data from Late Bronze Age hill-forts (Vasks 1999: 36-37). The new form of economy,
according to Vasks, could have produced a surplus and thus also opened the way for
an unequal development of society. One outcome of this development could be the
differentiation among Bronze Age occupation sites. Along with the common open
settlements, fortified settlements were also erected. Vasks also has tried to explain
why the fortified settlements were abandoned at the end of the first millennium
BC. He suggests that the intensive agricultural exploitation of limited areas to
gain surplus and prestige for a social elite led to a decline in both production and
exchange activity; soil fertility was unable to recover because fallow periods were
too short, and the large population centres declined.
Similar trends of cultural change can also be seen in the area of present Lithuania
(e.g. Grigalavičienė 1995). The general picture of Bronze Age development in
Lithuania is close to that for Latvia; open settlements are known, but the period

282
involves the frequent use of fortified settlements. Stock-keeping seems to have
been a principal element of the economy during the Bronze Age, but at the same
time also agriculture was actively practised (Steponaitis 2000: 58).
In Estonia too, the earliest indications of interest in or knowledge of farming date
to the Middle Neolithic. Pollen diagrams often show Neolithic human impact, even
if the growing of cereals seems to become more common from the Late Bronze Age
onwards (e.g. Piiper 1988; Pirrus & Rõuk 1988). Four or five pollen diagrams show
cereal cultivation already prior to 3000 cal BC, but if Late Neolithic and Bronze
Age dates are added, the total number of pollen sample sites with evidence of
early agriculture is more than a dozen (Kriiska 2000: 73). A main change coincides
with the Battle Axe Culture, evidenced by imprints of cereals on pottery, bones of
domestic animals, agricultural tools and a re-location of settlement to areas suitable
for agriculture.
Lang (1999d; cf. 1999c: 327-328) – arguing that the Battle Axe Culture does not
represent an immigration but a local development – regards the transition to a
framing subsistence as happening internally. According to him, the transition
process can be divided into three stages: A) the acquirement of primitive farming
within previously settled areas, B) the gradual relocation of primitive agriculturalists
to new areas, and C) a primary extensive land-use in those new areas. Stage A
is represented by Middle Neolithic sites with evidence of farming, but located in
environments favorable for hunting, fishing and gathering (Lang 1999d: 365-366).
In stage B new sites occur outside former hunter-gatherer areas. The extensive
land-use of stage C is indicated by small and semi-permanent sites and fluctuating
indications of human impact in the pollen diagrams. Cultivation based on slash-
and-burn, as well as the relatively sparse settlement, resulted in the mobility of sites
and fields. The principal mode of subsistence was farming and during this period
the last entirely hunter-gathering sites were abandoned. This stage can be dated
to the second millennium BC in northern and western Estonia, probably parts of
Latvia (particularly the Daugava river valley), Lithuania and some coastal strips of
southwestern Finland; in many areas this stage continued into the first millennium
BC (Lang 1999d: 367-368).
The process of settlement re-location was not uniform throughout Estonia,
but happened in different forms and at a different pace, depending on different
possibilities for farming in different areas. Three geographically and ecologically
diverse zones have been distinguished by Lang (1999c: 330-333): 1) the strip
of loo type soils some kilometers from the coast, 2) the immediate coastal zone
and small islands, and 3) the interior of Estonia. Within the first zone, soils were
suitable for agriculture and the sparse forest offered natural opportunities for
both cattle breeding and field cultivation. Here, territories established during the

283
Middle Neolithic continued into the Late Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age. In
addition to a certain continuity in the division of land, this indicates, according to
Lang (1999c: 330-331), that the shaping of a settlement pattern based on farming
subsistence had already happened during the time of the Battle Axe Culture.
Within the second (coastal) zone either an economy based predominantly
on marine resources or some kind of mixed economy with elements of farming
probably existed during the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age. After that, Lang
(1999c: 331, 335) regards the coastal zone as abandoned as there is very little
evidence of permanent settlement prior to the 13th century. The reason given for
this desertion is the leading position of farming in the subsistence and a decrease
of seal resources starting with the Early Bronze Age. The earlier coastal population
thus relocated to areas suitable for farming, and the immediate seacoast without
permanent settlement was divided between the farming communities living at
some distance from it (cf. Vedru 2001: 123-126). The third zone, characterized by a
thick soil cover, dense forest, lakes and rivers offered good conditions for hunter-
gatherer societies. Within this area relocation of settlement to soils suitable for
agriculture also started in the period of the Battle Axe Culture, but it took a much
longer time than in the loo zone and evidently farming communities and hunter-
gatherer communities coexisted within the same area.

5.6.1.2. Field systems

In Estonia the first field plots surrounded by stone baulks were discovered at
Rebala in the 1980’s and dated to the turn of the Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Iron
Age AD (Lõugas & Selirand 1989: 89). Before that only some clearance heaps had
been studied and usually dated to the beginning of the first millennium AD (cf.
Lang 1994a, 22). The situation changed in 1992, when the large system of ancient
fields at Saha-Loo was discovered and partly excavated. The field remains resemble
the Celtic fields well known from Scandinavia, North Germany, The Netherlands,
Britain etc., and were radiocarbon dated to the middle of the first millennium BC.,
i.e. the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (Lang 1994a; 1994b). A number of
similar sites have since then been studied and dated. During later investigations
the age of the oldest fields proved to go back to the late second century BC, i.e. the
Early Bronze Age (Lang et al. 2005a). In addition to clearance heaps and baulks
ard-marks have also been revealed at some sites. Among the oldest are the ones
preserved beneath a cultural layer from the Late Roman Iron Age at the Ilumäe II
site (Lang & Konsa 1997: 69; Lang 2000a: 178-180).

284
 In Estonia ancient field remains of different types are known throughout the
Iron Age, providing material possible to use for studies on the development of
agriculture as well as settlement and society. For example, in the Vihasoo-Palmse
study area (Lang 2000a; 2003) the majority of fossile fields belong to the last quarter
of the first and the first half of the second millennium AD – this applies to both
clearance cairn fields as well as strip fields. The strip fields have been interpreted as
reflecting the division of common field within a settlement unit, i.e. indicating the
existence of hamlets, as well as the introduction of the forked plough, able to turn
over the earth (Lang 2000a: 244-249).
Some remains of ancient fields are known from Latvia as well. Ard-marks
underneath the earthen wall of the Dievukalns fortified settlement are quite early,
from the Late Bronze Age at the latest (e.g. Lang 2007a: 67). Another possibly
early remain has been found at the settlement site of Indricā, where remains of
a cross-ploughed field occurred underneath a cultural layer formed during the
last millennium BC and the first half of the first millennium AD (Zariņa 1996).
No specific dating for this field has been suggested. A couple of other cases have
been investigated as well, such as the possible ancient field remains of Rucava and
Pokaiņi. Until more recently, ancient clearance heaps and stone settings have not
attracted much interest from archaeologists in Latvia, one exception being a special
project researching the ancient agrarian landscape of the Abava river valley. In
connection with this project possible ancient field remains were discovered near
the hill-forts of Matkule and Sabile. In addition, trial excavations have been made
at a site consisting of 60 stone heaps near the Valgale hill-fort, where radiocarbon
dated charcoal from the bottom of one of the heaps dates back to the 3rd to 7th
centuries AD (Ritums 2000).
A larger number of fossile fields with stone baulks and/or clearance heaps are
known from Lithuania. Such sites were found and described (and even excavated)
already during the first half of the 20th century, but it was not until the 1980’s that
the meaning of the sites was established. After that more sites have been revealed,
one interesting one being that of Padvariai, containing a system of stone and earth
baulks, reminiscent of typical Celtic fields (Merkevičius & Nemickienė 2003).
Radiocarbon dates from the Padvariai site are from the Middle Iron Age (Lang
2007a: 213).

5.6.1.3. Domestication

A synthesis of domestication from the point of view of the southeastern part of the
Baltic (mainly Lithuania) has been given by Daugnora & Girininkas (1995). During

285
the Early Neolithic, the only domesticated species identified is the dog. During the
Middle Neolithic (2900/2700 - 2300/2100 BC, uncalibrated) especially sheep (Ovies
aries) and goat (Capra hircus) appeared. Cattle and pig bones also occur. Middle
Neolithic cattle, pig and sheep (or goat) bones have been found at the Lithuanian
sites of Kretuonas, Sarnele and Sventoji as well as the Latvian ones of Zvidze, Kreici
and Sārnatė (Vasks 1999: 23). During the Late Neolithic (2300/2100 - 1800/1600 BC)
further advances in agriculture took place. The percentage of domesticated animals
was greater in the western part of Lithuania (up to around or 30-40 %) than in the
east. The most significant changes – especially with regard to eastern Lithuania
– occurred during the Bronze Age, when a steady increase in the percentage of
domesticated animals in bone assemblages can be seen – a trend that is supported
by data from fortified settlements in eastern Latvia (Daugnora & Girininkas 1995:
46-47).
Regarding Latvia, the Late Neolithic development is difficult to interpret as
there is not much data on the role of farming (Vasks 1999: 27). Bronze Age materials
are more numerous, including, for example, bones of horse and sheep as well as
cattle, found both inside the graves and in the earth layers of the barrows of the
Kalnieši cemetery (Vankina 1962). One of the largest bodies of material comes from
the fortified settlement site Brikuļi, where 86.7 % of the bone materials from the
earlier layers, dating from the first millennium BC to the first quarter of the first
millennium AD, are from domestic animals (Vasks 1994a). The percentages are:
cattle 39.3, sheep/goat 22, pig 19.3 and horse 18.6 %. In the discussion by Vasks
(1994a: 58-59, 118), the assumed average slaughtering age of the different animals
(four years for cattle, three years for horses, 1.5 years for sheep and one year for
pigs) has been taken into account in order to bring the quantities nearer the actual
number of living animals. In the herd-corrected results, cattle seem to dominate
(with a nearly 60 % proportion if given as the percentage of the whole herd), but
the number of horses is also rather high (21 %), even when the seemingly low
estimated age for horses is used in the calculation. There are, however, finds from
Brikuļi of split young horse bones, supporting this conclusion and showing that
horses were used for meat (Vasks 1994a: 118). 144

144
Vasks (1994a: 58-59, 118) has given the herd-corrected result only as the bone percentage
multiplied by the correcting factor. Comparing the quantities is easier if they are given
as percentages of the whole herd. One should also be aware of the fact that (in addition
to the very long period of accumulation) formation processes related to slaughtering
practises (including possibly differing slaughtering ages) and, for example, variation
in the use and disposal of different parts of the animals add to the uncertainty of the
result.

286
 In Estonia too, finds of bones from domesticated animals have been dated
(according to Finnish chronology) to the Middle Neolithic.145 The earliest finds are
bones from domesticated and semi-domesticated pig, found at the Late Comb Ware
sites Tamula and Loona. There are a total of about 50 bones, one of which (from
the Loona site) has been radiocarbon dated to 2870 (2620) 2498 cal BC (Lõugas
et al. 1996; Maldre 1999). These finds probably indicate local domestication. The
earliest materials do not, however, contain evidence of cattle breeding, the earliest
indications of which occur in connection with the Battle Axe Culture. Evidently
all the main domestic animals (cattle, pig, sheep and goat) were kept during this
period, if one relies upon animal bones and bone artefacts found in graves (Maldre
1999). It has proved more problematic (as in the case of Latvia) to find data on Late
Neolithic / Early Bronze Age domesticates. One assemblage of finds discussed in this
connection was found at the Early Bronze Age site of Kaseküla in western Estonia,
dated to the second half of the second millennium BC. This material included all
important species, i.e. cattle, sheep or goat, pig and even horse (Mandel 1993: 21).
The dating of this material is, however, difficult. At first the finds were connected
with the Late Neolithic or the Bronze Age, but later excavations and materials do
not support this opinion (Lõugas 1997: 17; Kriiska et al. 1998: 40).
Better osteological materials are available from Late Bronze Age contexts. The
amount of bones from domesticated animals is in many cases high enough to allow
the interpretation that cattle breeding became predominant during this period.
Bones of domesticates have, for example, been counted to constitute 77 % of the
total osteological material from the Asva fortified settlement, 79 % at the Ridala
site and an even higher proportion of the bones from the Iru hill-fort (Maldre 1999:
322). The most well-known of these cases is the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age site of Asva (Indreko 1939), where there is a rather large body of bone material
available. The Asva fortified settlement was in use mainly from the 9th to the 6th
century BC, and later in the second half of the first millennium AD. The bone finds
from the latest excavations in 1965-66 have been analysed by Lõugas (1994). The
bones are interpreted as portraying the subsistence of the Asva people in the Late
Bronze Age, but the dating of the bones remains somewhat unclear, since Lõugas
(1994: 72) mentions that the bones analysed came from both early and late layers
of the settlement. Within the 1965-66 material, bones from domesticated animals
accounted for 57 % of the total material, the largest amount of domesticates being
sheep or goat (44 %) and cattle (31 %). Among the cattle bones are four large bones,

145
According to Estonian chronology the beginning of the Late Neolithic is dated earlier.
In Estonia, the Late Neolithic is regarded as beginning with the Battle Axe Culture (e.g.
Lang 1999b), while in Finland this stage, as well as the Late Comb Ceramic Culture,
represent the Middle Neolithic.

287
interpreted as probably belonging to castrated bullock used as draught animals
(Lõugas 1994: 75-76). One third of the cattle and sheep (or goat) bones and more
than half of the pig bones come from juveniles. One third of the horse bones likewise
come from juveniles. It is thus assumed that horse-meat was used for food at Asva
(Lõugas 1994: 75).146 Bone materials, including domesticated species from the Late
Bronze Age or Early Iron Age, are also found at other sites in Estonia, but there
often seems to be the possibility of confusion with materials from later stages of
settlement (e.g. Jaanits 1994; Lõugas 1997: 74).

5.6.1.4. The "second landnam" in northern Estonia

The “first landnam” in northern Estonia, as distinguished by Lang (1996), is

archaeologically connected with the Battle Axe culture. This was according to
Lang the first colonization of agricultural land. The “second landnam” involved
an increase of territories and building of stone graves during the Late Bronze Age
and Pre-Roman Iron Age or (in other areas) during the late Pre-Roman and Roman
Iron Age. Lang has interpreted this as a period of change in several aspects of
life – religious, social, and that concerning property rights. The second landnam
probably included the establishment of private ownership of cultivated land.
The first intensification of agriculture started when the possibilities for the earlier
extensive system were exhausted, due to increase in population, reaching the limits
of resources for shifting agriculture, or something else. This meant, first of all, a
stronger division and fixation of agricultural land between settlement units. This,
in turn, caused more intense territorial behavior from the communities, which (in
archaeological terms) found expression in the building of monumental graves, the

146
Estonian prehistoric and medieval horse bones have been more closely surveyed by
Maldre (1998). In Estonia both the wild and the domesticated horse is found, but
according to Maldre there is no reason to expect that the horse was domesticated locally.
At the Abora site in the Lake Lubāna area in Latvia a horn object from as early as the
Middle Neolithic has been interpreted as a bridle cheek piece, indicating that horses
were already used for riding at that time (Loze 1997b: 25). This evidence is not totally
convincing, but it is interesting to note that bones from seventeen horses have also been
found at sites in the same area, dated to the Late Neolithic. According to Maldre (1998),
the bones from wild horse decrease at the end of the Neolithic, while the domesticated
horse is first present during the Late Bronze Age, when horse bones are frequent. The
introduction of the domesticated horse may have happened earlier, but there is no
suitable osteological material to be studied, for example, from the Early Bronze Age in
Estonia (Maldre 1998: 204). In the Late Iron Age the number of horse bones decreased,
probably due to the changing function of the horse; rather than a source of meat, it was
increasingly used as a draught animal and for riding, even if butchery waste shows that
horse-meat was still used for food (Maldre 1998: 206-208).

288
erection of fortifications and the establishment of a permanent field system (Lang
1996; 1999d: 368).
In the Late Bronze Age stone-cist graves were built within the zone of loo type
soils along the coast, but very few have been found in the interior area. Other distinct
features occurring in the first zone are the remains of fossil fields dated to the first
millennium BC as well as fortified settlements dated to the Late Bronze Age. The
stone-cist graves have been interpreted as indicating a dense settlement pattern
consisting of single farms, while the fortified settlements have been local centres of
power, which controlled access to trade, the distribution of bronzes and the surplus
of farming products (Lang 1999c: 333-334). Most of the fortified settlements belong
to the same period of time, periods V and VI of the Bronze Age, while only a few
have been dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Lang 1996; Lang et al. 2005b). In the
interior area the development looks different. An increase in field cultivation and
cattle breeding can be concluded from palynlogical data, but it is not seen in the
archaeological data as clearly as in the first zone. The explanation given by Lang
(1999c: 334-335) is that the settlement pattern of the interior area was more sparse,
there were still enough resources for agricultural land and therefore there was “no
need to express territorial behavior”. Furthermore, the good conditions for slash-
and-burn agriculture favoured a semi-permanent mode of life. Not until the Early
Roman Iron Age stone graves occur in the interior area, probably indicating the
end of colonization, “division of agricultural lands between the settlement units,
and the territorial behavior of these units competing for the lands”.
One of the most important results achieved in Lang’s (1996) analysis of settlement
areas in northern Estonia is the interpretation of continuity in the development of
territories, starting from either the Late Neolithic or the Late Bronze / Early Iron
Age, and lasting at least up to the Roman Iron Age or even longer. Investigations
of cemeteries show continuity from Bronze Age settlement, but also an increase in
the number of territories. As Lang has interpreted the territory as the geographical
expression of social power, the interpretation of territorial stability would be
that the power that created and re-created these territories was likewise stable. A
decrease in territories and rearrangements recorded during the Roman Iron Age
is thus an indication of instability of power around this time. The decrease in the
number of territories during the Roman Iron Age, under conditions of estimated
population increase, can be explained according to Lang (1996) as the establishment
of territories where settlement units consisted of several households. The same
situation has become apparent from the location of Roman Iron Age graves, which
in some places were erected close to each other, indicating the existence of several
farms. Settlement sites proving this hypothesis, however, are still lacking. This is
similar to the situation in southwestern Finland; some cases like this within the

289
present study area – Spurila in Paimio, Lupaja in Perniö and perhaps Isokylä in Salo
– have already been described. These settlement units probably did not form true
villages or hamlets but consisted of several single farms situated close together.

5.6.2. Food production in a long-term perspective in Finland

5.6.2.1. Stone Age agriculture and domestication

No proof of animal husbandry or cereal cultivation connected with the Comb

Ceramic Culture have so far been detected in southwestern Finland. According
to palynological data, cereal cultivation was, however, practised during the
period of the Comb Ceramic Culture both on the Russian Plain (Khotinsky
1993) and in the vicinity of Novgorod (Königsson et al. 1997) – possibly also in
the northern Lake Onega area (Vuorela et al. 2001).147 These occurrences can be
dated to the fourth (Bolshaya Berezovka) and the third millennium BC (Rabelik
fen and Pegrema), roughly corresponding to the period of the Late Comb Ceramic
(Ka III) and Pyheensilta (KaP) phases in southwestern Finland. The question of
whether cultivation was practised in Finland during this period is still open, as
these millennia are covered by rather few pollen sample series and no Cerealia
pollen have been detected. For example the Labböleträsket series from Västanfjärd,
analysed by Teija Alenius and presented in Appendix 2, contains indications of
human impact during the period of the Comb Ceramic Culture, but no decisive
proof of agriculture.
Elsewhere in Europe – including Scandinavia and Estonia – there is evidence
of cereal cultivation and husbandry related to the Middle Neolithic Battle Axe
Culture, but in Finland such data is still lacking. The Finnish Battle Axe Culture
has nevertheless traditionally been regarded as a culture, the economy of which
included farming. One point in this discussion has been the occurrence in the Finnish
language of Baltic loanwords related to farming, interpreted as introduced during
the time of the Battle Axe Culture, probably due to immigration (e.g. Salo 2005a:
21-28). In the 1970’s doubts were raised, as – contrary to previous expectations – no
proof of a Neolithic economy had been found. Rather, it was suggested, hunting
and fishing was of crucial importance for the people of the Battle Axe Culture as

147
In the case of Pegrema in the Lake Onega area, the result has been discussed in relation
to contacts with more southern or south-eastern regions where cultivation was already
known. Thus the cereal pollen need not necessarily represent local cultivation but
anthropochores transported from other regions (Vuorela et al. 2001: 135).

290
well (Edgren 1970: 53-56; 1984; 1993a: 95; Meinander 1984a: 5-7). Thus there are
views suggesting that the economy of the Finnish Battle Axe Culture was different
from that of the Battle Axe Culture in the East Baltic area (e.g. Lang 1999d: 366). This
is still an open question – one can only present indices and arguments in favour of
or against the idea of a subsistence strategy involving food production.
One indication in favour of agriculture often referred to is that the northern
boundary of the Finnish Battle Axe Culture follows approximately the -8 °C average
curve for the present-day January temperature, thus restricting the distribution to
the climatologically most suitable agricultural areas in Finland (e.g. Edgren 1970:
53). Another point has been the supposed occurrence of Battle Axe Culture sites in
connection with clayey soils suitable for agriculture and not necessarily close to
water as in the case of Comb Ceramic sites. This picture has since then changed, as
the relation to clay soils is not at all as clear as previously thought (Edgren 1970:
53; 1993a: 94). Some differences in the general location of Comb Ceramic and Battle
Axe Culture sites in the landscape, however, can still be pointed out. At least in
the Turku area this seems obvious: Battle Axe culture sites show a different areal
pattern compared to Comb Ceramic sites (Sartes 1994: 110-114). The main difference
seems to be the evenly scattered distribution of the sites – perhaps according to
proportional resource areas – rather than the marine-oriented clusters of sites found
for the Comb Ceramic Culture. This has been interpreted as indicating a different
relation of the people of the Battle Axe Culture towards the environment, probably
because of the practice of food production. A hint towards a similar pattern can also
be seen on Kemiönsaari, where the location of Battle Axe Culture sites differ from
that of typical Comb Ceramic sites.
Attempts to elucidate the subsistence economy of the Battle Axe culture have
also made use of palynology and palaeobotany. There are only few findings
positively associated with the Battle Axe Culture: one such is the evidence of forest
clearance in the vicinity of the Perkiö settlement site at Hauho, which might indicate
herding (Alhonen 1970). Occurrences of Cerealia pollen in sediments from lake
Ahvenaisenjärvi in Koski may also have a date corresponding to that of the Battle
Axe Culture (Siiriäinen 1982b: 216). In addition to these studies, grain imprints
in ceramics have been systematically searched for, but without success (Edgren
1984: 11). The question of the role of animal husbandry has also been difficult to
determine, as bone finds are rare on Battle Axe Culture sites. Some single bones
from cattle and sheep or goat have been identified on Stone Age sites (Forstén
1973: 76; Nuñez 1995: 61; Luoto 1996: 49-50; Ukkonen 1996: 75-76), but they cannot
be unequivocally associated with any specific period or cultural group – in some
cases they may be suggested as being recent in comparison to the settlement site
materials (e.g. Katiskoski 2004: 112-113). In what is thus far the largest bone material

291
associated with the Battle Axe Culture that has been studied, the Jönsas settlement
site in Vantaa, the major part of the material consisted of seal and fish (Forstén &
Blomqvist 1977; Edgren 1984: 14; Purhonen & Ruonavaara 1994: 93-96). One factor
possibly reducing the importance of this result, however, is the Mesolithic period
of use of the same site. Some of the bones investigated might be considered rather
to represent that stage of occupation.

5.6.2.2. Late Neolithic and Bronze Age breakthrough

On the Åland Islands there is evidence of both cattle and sheep dated to the early
part of the Late Neolithic, whilst the oldest pig bones are from the very end of the
Late Neolithic or the Bronze Age (Storå 2000: 71-72, Table 4). There are, however,
only sparse indications of cultivation, as the cultural context and dating of the only
charred grain of barley (Hordeum sp.) from the Neolithic Kolsvidja I site (Lindqvist
1988: 15-16) has been questioned (Nuñez 1989; Stenbäck 2003: 91). The oldest
unquestionable evidence of farming comes from mainland Finland and is related
to the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Kiukainen Culture. At the Niuskala
Kotirinne site in Turku charred cereal grains, one of which is identified as barley
(Hordeum vulgare cf. var. nudum), was found in the 1980’s and radiocarbon dated to
3200 ± 170 (Ua-338), corresponding to the calibrated date 1900-1000 cal BC, the 1
sigma (62,2 %) probability range being 1690-1260 cal BC (Pihlman & Seppä-Heikka
1985; Vuorela & Lempiäinen 1988; Vuorela 1990: 119; cf. Lempiäinen 1999a). In
addition, a number of pollen analyses show the earliest occurrence of Cerealia in
the Late Neolithic or the Early Bronze Age (Vuorela 1972; 1975; 1990; Tolonen 1978a;
Siiriäinen 1981; 1982b; Donner 1984). Sites mentioned from within the present study
area are Lalaxkärret in the Nauvo archipelago and Ilsokärret in Kemiö (Asplund
& Vuorela 1989; Vuorela 1990: 119-120; 1999: 147-148) as well as Labböleträsket in
Västanfjärd (Appendix 2). It seems clear that during this time, if not earlier, small-
scale cultivation was being practised in Finland.
Presumably related to this early agriculture are also the flint sickles discussed
above. Another stone implement from the period of the Kiukainen Culture – the
narrowbladed axe – has also sometimes been suggested as being related in some
way to cultivation (Meinander 1954a: 101; Edgren 1993a: 110; Salo 1997: 64-65).
Thus far this is purely hypothetical; under closer examination these items at least
have not proved to bear use-wear marks of the kind typical of stone ardshares
(Brady 1990: 162-163). Simple shaft-hole axes have also been suggested to have
actually been stone ardshares. One good point in the discussion has been that
the shaft-holes of these axes often seem to be too small for shafting a functional

292
axe (Salomonsson 1958: 27-28). Stone tools with use-wear in the form of striation
may have been parts of ards, but finds connecting specifically shaft-hole axes with
wooden parts of ards are so far lacking. On the other hand, properly shafted axes of
this type have been found, showing that they have been used as proper axes.148
Regardless of the indications of cultivation, the Kiukainen Culture sites mostly
have a marine-oriented location without any noticeable tendency to favour soils
suitable for cultivation (Zvelebil 1981: 123, 132). On the contrary, their locations
often resemble those of the marine sites of the Comb Ceramic hunter-gatherers.
Likewise the bone materials from Kiukainen Culture sites support the idea of the
dominant importance of marine hunting (Lahtiperä 1970: 202-203; Salo 1981: 398-
399; Edgren 1984: 94; Asplund et al. 1989). One often described find is the remains
of fishing nets from Tuorsniemi in Pori, containing more than 800 bark floats (Luho
1954; Kauhanen 1974). This must have been a system comprising a number of big
nets, indicating a large-scale organised undertaking. A radiocarbon dating (I-3243)
from one of the floats has given the calibrated result of 2460-2140 cal BC.
The Kiukainen Culture thus is characterised by a mix of elements of both
hunting-gathering and agricultural cultures. The farming component may have
derived from the preceding Battle Axe Culture, or it might be associated with
escalating western contacts during the Late Neolithic (Siiriäinen 1981; 1982a: 24).
These contacts are manifested in some Scandinavian flint objects as well as in a
general resemblance of artefact materials. Regardless of the Late Neolithic indicia
of farming, the Bronze Age has in many cases been regarded as the main period
of "economic domestication" (Zvelebil 1993) of the hunter-gatherers in southern
Finland and the East Baltic. According to this way of thinking, the Late Neolithic
indications of farming are considered to be of only minor importance. The trigger
for the adoption of agriculture during the Bronze Age has been suggested as
being a decrease in resources (Zvelebil 1993: 151-155). Some form of "economic
imperialism" has also been proposed as a reason for the adoption of farming
(Matiskainen 1998: 114). According to the latter theory, the Bronze Age involved
a certain extent of Scandinavian colonization and the creation of a vassal system
linking coastal Finland with Indo-European regions. A thought-provoking idea is
that one reason for the adoption of cereal cultivation as well as domesticates could
have been the use of beer (Taavitsainen et al. 1998: 240) or bread and animals in
rituals or in relation to status. A similar idea has been proposed, for instance, with

148
Possible stone ploughshares have also been discussed in Estonia and Latvia. In Estonia,
such stone artefacts have been tentatively dated to the Late Neolithic or Early Bronze
Age (Lang 1999c: 328, 333, Fig. 2, Fig. 4; 2000a: 71-73; 2003: 133-134), and in Latvia a
couple of Early Metal Period stone ploughshares have been presented (e.g. Graudonis
2001: 90 att.).

293
regard to landscape changes in southern Scandinavia around 1000 BC, which could
have been related to a growing interest in the ownership of livestock. Here signs of
increased pasture areas occur during a period which lacks monuments and marked
symbols in the material culture; this may indicate that at this time the maintenance
of herds of livestock symbolised wealth and status (e.g. Larsson 2000: 65-66).

5.6.2.3. Early Iron Age agriculture and domestication

Palynological evidence, in the form of pollen diagrams for southwestern Finland,

offer indications of Early Iron Age farming. The increased importance of farming is
further stressed by the continuous geographical expansion of agriculture in inland
areas during the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. During the Late Bronze Age and
the Pre-Roman Iron Age, Cerealia pollen are found as far north as Keminmaa, as
well as in Southern Ostrobothnia in the west and Outokumpu in the northeast
(Vuorela 1999: 148-149). During the same time period, there also seems to be an
increase in domesticates, identified osteologically from settlement site materials as
well as some cairns. The main emphasis has been on the occurrences of cattle and
pig found at several sites (Edgren 1999b: 327), but in the Late Bronze Age Nakkila
Rieskaronmäki house, for example, sheep and goat have also been identified
(Lahtiperä 1970: 208; cf. Salo 1997: 84).149 A couple of horse teeth are also known from
possible Bronze Age contexts (Lahtiperä 1970: 202, 208). To previously published
materials one can add domesticates identified from within the present study area,
discussed in chapter 4.4.150
No Early Iron Age fossilised field-systems with clearance baulks have so far
been identified in Finland. In fact, younger field remains of this kind have not been
investigated either – with a few exceptions. One is a case in the village of Salo in
Laitila, where parts of a prehistoric field system have been investigated and dated to
two stages about 350-600 and 1020-1250 AD (Roeck Hansen & Nissinaho 1995; Salo

149
The best dating available for Pre-Roman cattle comes from the Hevossuonmäki site
in Rauma. A cattle bone found has been radiocarbon dated to 2330 +/- 35 BP (Hela-
1228), i.e. 520 – 230 cal BC (Lesell 2007: 71-72). Another radiocarbon dating was earlier
performed on a bone from Leväluhta in Isokyrö, with the result of 2100 +/- 210 BP (St
9854) (Formisto 1993: 140). The error margin is, unfortunately, rather large, resulting in
the calibrated date of 800 cal BC – 400 cal AD.
150
Most of the materials come from the southern and western part of Finland. In Bronze
Age or Early Iron Age materials from eastern Finland the occurrence of domestic species
is sparse. Only three sites occupied during this time show domestic species in the faunal
material, and in all cases the bones have been interpreted as possibly recent (Ukkonen
1996: 75-76).

294
1997: 97-98). Clearance baulks have furthermore been investigated at Retulansaari
in Hattula, in the province of Häme (Taivainen 2005). Also the probable clearance
remains discussed in the case of the Tappo site in Västanfjärd (chapter 3.4.2.1)
could be mentioned in this context, but it has so far not been possible to connect
the clearance with agriculture. In addition to the few cases containing proper stone
baulks, many sites with clearance cairns (usually considered to date from the
Historical Period) have been surveyed, mostly in the inland and the eastern part of
Finland.
Ard marks in the form of cross-ploughed parts of fields are known from a
few sites. These remains are in many cases difficult to date, but the impression
is that most of them are from the Late Iron Age. On the southwestern Finnish
coast cross-ploughed ard marks in prehistoric contexts have been identified on
the sandy hillslopes of Kirkkomäki (Katiskoski 1992: 84, Map 2) and Kärsämäki
in Turku (Roeck Hansen & Nissinaho 1995: 27; Salo 1995a: 22) as well as at a site
called Kappelniitty in Yläne (e.g. Mikkola 2005: 49). The Kärsämäki case was not
identified during excavations in 1951, but has subsequently been interpreted from
photographs. If the Kärsämäki case is accepted, there are around ten to fifteen
prehistoric fields with ard-marks known in Finland, the Åland Islands included (e.g.
Vikkula et al. 1994; Roeck Hansen & Nissinaho 1995; Huurre 2003: 42-43; Mikkola
2005; Pellinen & Pälikkö 2006).151 The most thoroughly investigated ancient field
remains in Finland are the Rapola Matomäki cross-plowed field in Häme, dated to
780-1217 cal AD (Vikkula et al. 1994; cf. Lempiäinen 1999b; Seppälä 1999: 100-101)
and the cross-ploughed fields at Mikkeli Orijärvi in Savo, the oldest phases of which
are dated to the Viking Age (Mikkola & Talvio 2000; Mikkola 2001; 2005; Mikkola
& Tenhunen 2003). The most evident southwestern Finnish case is that of the field
remains at Kirkkomäki. In addition to the first observations, published by Kaarlo
Katiskoski (1992), further parts of a field, originally probably as extensive as the

151
In addition to the sites mentioned in the text above, Iron Age field remains have been
identified at Maalahti Kalashabrännan in Ostrobothnia and at Hartola Joenrantapelto
in southern Häme (Liedgren 1991: 126-129; Kotivuori 1992: 71; Mikkola 2005: 49). Ard-
marks have also been found under medieval cultural layers in the midst of the city of
Turku; the oldest urban layers on top of the field remains have been dated to the end of
the 13th century and the 14th century (Pihlman 2005; Pihlman & Majantie 2006: 46-49).
Plough-marks are also mentioned at the Niuskala Kotirinne site in Turku (Saloranta
2000: 25-26); whether these can be interpreted as remains of a prehistoric field is unclear.
Other possible cases are Torttolanmäki in Hattula and Kalkkinen in Asikkala (Palo
2001; Mikkola 2005: 49). Furthermore ard-marks have been identified at Vainionmäki
in Laitila, where they have been interpreted as ritual ploughing (Söyrinki-Harmo 1996:
116). On the Åland Islands one well-preserved cross-ploughed field remain, dated to
900-1300 AD, has been detected at the Kastelholms Kungsgård site in Sund; other field-
remains are known from Borgboda Ribacken and Kvärnbo in Saltvik as well as Kattby
in Hammarland (Núñez 1993: 64-66; 1995: 116; Mikkola 2005: 49-50).

295
500-600 m2 field at Rapola in Häme, were revealed during the excavation seasons
of 1991-92. The field has a broad stratigraphic dating, as it must be younger than
a Pre-Roman fireplace disturbed by the ard-marks and older than a 11th century
inhumation cemetery at the site.
Considering the early fields in northern Estonia, with a close resemblance to the
general development of farming in western Europe, raises questions concerning
ancient farming techniques on the other side of the Gulf of Finland. It would seem
odd if major differences were to occur in two areas so close to each other. Given
the present stage of knowledge, however, there is no material to compare with the
early Estonian field systems. This may partly be due to the specific soils, geological
conditions and recent land-use in Estonia when compared with the conditions in
Finland. For the sake of comparison it could also be pointed out that fossilised
fields have been considered rare in Latvia as well. Due to new surveys, some field
remains have been revealed (Ritums 2000), but mainly in the form of clearance
heaps and with later dates than the Estonian Early Iron Age field systems.
Early field cultivation is also difficult to exemplify with reference to agricultural
tools (other than sickles and scythes, as mentioned above). In southern and central
Europe iron ploughshares were already common during the Pre-Roman and
Roman Iron Age. In the Baltic Sea area, on the other hand, they are surprisingly
late. For example, in Denmark there is no real evidence of their use before the
Viking Age (Levinsen 1989: 451). The few earliest occurrences in Finland are also
dated to this period. Earlier pieces are found in Gotland, but in mainland Sweden,
in Norway and for example in Ireland they occur only slightly earlier (Brady 1990:
175; cf. Myrdal 1999: 53-56).

5.6.2.4. Palaeoethnobotany – some general lines

Within palaeoethnobotany evidence of cereal cultivation is of special importance.152

The most important cereal in southwestern Finland during the prehistoric period
seems to have been barley. The first occurrence at Niuskala Kotirinne in Turku,
dated to the Early Bronze Age, is of the naked type (Hordeum vulgare cf. var.

152
In addition to cereals, not many remains of cultivated plants occur in Finnish prehistoric
palaethnobotanical records. One exception is Pea (Pisum sativum), which is present in
archaeological finds in the form of impressions in ceramics from a grave mound in
Vammala, dated to AD 400-500 (Luoto et al. 1983). Some other finds from the Iron Age
are also known (Kivikoski 1946: 68; Seppä-Heikka 1983). Peas are known to have been
cultivated already during the Neolithic in Europe; the plant in fact arrived with the
Neolithic economy (e.g. Onnela et al. 1996: 251).

296
nudum) (Pihlman & Seppä-Heikka 1985; Vuorela & Lempiäinen 1988). Naked
barley decreased gradually during the first millennia BC, probably due to climatic
deterioration, or because of the beginning of more intensive cereal production
with thorough soil preparation and heavy manuring (Onnela et al. 1996). During
the Iron Age, four-rowed hulled barley (Hordeum vulgare var. vulgare) became the
staple crop in northern Europe.
Since the classic find of Early Bronze Age barley at Kotirinne, it has proved
difficult to find additional Bronze Age macrofossile materials. There is one Early
Bronze Age date available, 2990 ± 60 BP (Hela-167), i.e. 1400-1020 cal BC, from
the Kitulansuo site in Ristiina (Lavento 2001: 139) as well as one Late Bronze Age
date 2560 ± 60 BP (Hela-208), corresponding to 830-510 or 470-410 cal BC, from the
Luistari site in Eura (Lehtosalo-Hilander 1999: 42). The biggest Bronze Age body of
macrofossile material is that of the Peltola Alatalo site in Laihela, Ostrobothnia. An
investigation of the site yielded material consisting of altogether 41 cereal grains,
19 of which identified as barley (Hordeum). Included in the assemblage is also one
grain of Oats (Avena), which is unusual. One barley grain has been radiocarbon
dated (with a two sigma consistency) to 830-550 cal BC (Holmblad 2007: 153).
Neither are Pre-Roman dates many. There is one probable Pre-Roman find of
barley (Häkkinen & Lempiäinen: 1996: 148) from the Hannunniittu site in Turku
(cf. Laukkanen & Vuorinen 1985); barley also occurs at the Huilu 2 settlement site
in Lappi, dated to the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Raike & Haimila 2003: 18). An even
better indication of Pre-Roman barley, however, was discovered in connection with
the investigation of the Riihivainio Orhinkarsina site in Turku in 1996. One grain of
Hordeum, identified by Terttu Lempiäinen, was AMS-dated to 2180 ± 35 BP (GrA-
14134), i.e. 380-150 or 140-110 cal BC.
Other species also occur rather early. The earliest find of club wheat (Triticum
compactum) was discovered in connection with the excavation of the prehistoric
field at Rapola in the province of Häme. The find has been dated to the Pre-Roman
Iron Age, i.e. earlier than the actual field remains (Vikkula et al. 1994). Club wheat is
present in some finds from the Late Iron Age and the Middle Ages as well, but wheat
cultivation during that time was still rare and was concentrated in southwestern
Finland (Onnela et al. 1996). Hulled emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) was also
known in Finland in the Iron Age (e.g. Seppä-Heikka 1985), but it is lacking in Late
Iron Age macrofossil materials. This has been interpreted as indicating that the
cultivation of emmer wheat declined during the Merovingian Period (Onnela et al.
1996: 251).
The cultivation of oats described in pollen diagrams has been dated differently
depending on the interpretation (Onnela et al. 1996: 251). Macrofossil evidence
from Katajamäki in Salo seems to indicate that oats (Avena sativa) were already

297
known in Finland AD 300 (Aalto 1982). An even earlier occurrence is that of the
Peltomaa Alitalo site in Laihela mentioned above (Holmblad 2007: 153), if the grain
of oats can be regarded as belonging to the same context as the Late Bronze Age
barley found at the site. The identification of cultivated oats, however, is difficult,
as the de-husked grains of wild species resemble those of cultivated oats in their
morphology, and the difference in size cannot be reliably measured (Onnela et al.
1996: 251). Oats are mentioned for the first time in written sources in 1387; they
were grown mainly for animal fodder and played a minor role in agriculture.
The first occurrences of rye (Secale cereale) in Finland have been detected in
pollen analysis. Such finds have earlier been dated to the Early Iron Age at the
earliest (Tolonen 1978a: 195; Vuorela & Lempiäinen 1988), but at Söderbyträsket
in Dragsfjärd the occurrence of a single grain of rye identified by Teija Alenius
(Appendix 2) is even older, from a layer confidently dated to the Early Bronze Age.
Additional proof for the early occurrence of rye on Kemiönsaari comes from the
Labböleträsket series, where a similar dating is suggested by interpolation from
radiocarbon dated horizons. The earliest AMS-dated macrofossile rye so far was
found at the Naarankalmanmäki site in Lempäälä (Raike & Seppälä 2005: Appendix
1). The dating result 1975 ± 175 (Hela-283) unfortunately has an extremely broad
error margin, giving the calibrated date 400 cal BC – 450 cal AD. According to an
unpublished report written in 1986 by Merja Seppä-Heikka early macrofossile rye
– suggested as dating to around 100 BC – 100 AD – has also been found at Spurila
in Paimio (Lempiäinen 2005: 111; 2006: 36). These grains occurred together with
grains of barley and emmer-wheat. This is similar to early occurrences of rye in
paleoethnobothanical samples from Northern Germany and the Rhine area, where
rye occurs together with other cereals and has been interpreted – like the early
Finnish rye – as not grown as such but occurring as a weed amongst the other
cereals (Behre 1992; Lempiäinen 2005: 110).
The Early Metal Period is the time when rye became common throughout
Central Europe (Behre 1992; Onnela et al. 1996). The distribution of macrofossil
rye caryopses in Central Europe is, however, peculiar; during the early Pre-Roman
Iron Age there seems to be a more northward distribution (including, for example,
the Polish coast) than during the late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Roman Period,
when finds in the area around the Baltic appear to be sparse (Frenzel 1999: Abb.
6-8). This may indicate fluctuations in the spread of rye, maybe due to changes in
climate and cultivation methods. Still after the Roman Iron Age the cultivation of
rye was of minor importance in Europe in general as well as in Finland. This is
indicated by the sporadic occurrences of rye, the amount of which in macrofossil
finds dated to the Early and Middle Iron Age is very small (Aalto 1982; Onnela et
al. 1996; Lempiäinen 2005; 2006). During the 8th-10th centuries an increase in rye

298
cultivation is to be seen in pollen diagrams from Germany, the Netherlands and
southern Scandinavia. This development is supported by macrofossile data (Behre
1992: 151-152). In Finland the expansion can be seen in pollen samples as well as
in palaeoethnobotanic samples from along the coast. In macrofossile materials, the
proportion of rye is as high as 15 %; in one somewhat later find from Sievola in
Paimio, dating from the Crusade Period, rye is already dominant (Seppä-Heikka
1983). A supply of cereals discovered at the Rähälä Ryökäs settlement site in Lieto
and dated to the 13th century was almost entirely made up of rye (Lempiäinen
1996).
The rate at which specialisation of cultivation developed during the Iron Age
in southwestern Finland is so far difficult to determine. Macrofossil finds from
certain sites depict farming practices and the most common cultivated plants, but
different formation processes also have to be taken into account in dealing with
palaeoethnobotanical material. The separate dates of single grains help to construct
a chronology of cultivation of different plants, but large and archaeologically
well documented materials are needed for an interpretation of the importance of
various cereals and other plants in different contexts. Large materials, however, are
rare. In the extensive Late Iron Age macrofossil material from Pahamäki in Lieto,
consisting of a total of over 9000 macrofossils, barley (Hordeum vulgare) was still the
dominant cultivated plant, comprising 54 % of the identified material (Onnela et al.
1996). Rye (Secale cereale) followed, with 14.6 %. Poorly represented species were
wheat (Triticum aestivum), oats (Avena sp.) and pea (Pisum sativum).

5.7. The Early Iron Age turning point – a summary

In the first chapters of this book, seen from the perspective of Kemiönsaari, the
Early Iron Age emerges as a period of change, the settlement development of
the island differing from that of the mainland. The Roman Iron Age in particular
reflects a change because of the clusters of cemeteries evolving on the mainland.
This “turning point” can be seen from different angles: either the development
in the mainland river valleys took a new direction, the situation on Kemiönsaari
prevailing as it was, or the change was more specifically related to the conditions
on the island, where the development started to diverge from that of the mainland
more than before. Causes for change may have evolved locally or been due to more
general factors affecting societies further away. As the last period of indisputable
permanent settlement before the change is the Pre-Roman Iron Age, the preceding
chapter has focused most on this particular period, exploring various topics of
Finnish and general Early Iron Age archaeology.

299
 Since the old theory of a major Early Iron Age Finnish immigration was
abandoned during the 1970’s the general opinion has been that Pre-Roman
settlement sites in southern and western Finland may be associated with the
ancestors of the population later living in the same area. The detection of these
sites is largely due to the identification of pottery representing the style known as
Morby Ware. As metal objects are sparse in both settlement and cemetery contexts,
this type of pottery is the best material with regard to the general chronological
framework of the Finnish Pre-Roman Iron Age. In this chapter, the possibility of
a major Late Bronze Age period of use of Morby Ware is rejected and the idea of
an essentially Pre-Roman Iron Age dating for this pottery style is maintained. Late
Bronze Age dates obtained by the means of radiocarbon dating are rather the result
of poor source materials and calibration problems.
The problem of Early Iron Age calibration is a general one, making the use of
single radiocarbon dates problematic for the specification of the demarcation of
the Iron Age. The most problematic period is the Nordic Bronze Age Period VI;
Morby Ware may, in principle, occur as early, but closed contexts combining Morby
Ware and Period VI objects are still lacking. This is comparable to results obtained
elsewhere, supporting the traditional general boundaries 500-1 BC for materials
related to the Pre-Roman Iron Age. With regard to the inner chronology of the
period from a Finnish point of view not much can be added. One can identify some
early and late Pre-Roman finds and features, the former in many respects related
to continuities from the Bronze Age and the latter to new influences preceding
the Roman Iron Age. With reference to Finnish materials alone, no absolute
chronological boundary between the Early and Late Finnish Pre-Roman Iron Age
can as yet be drawn.
With regard to Pre-Roman pottery in southwestern Finland it can be noted,
that although Morby Ware in its typical form is dominating, other pottery types –
rusticated ware, fine-grained pottery, textile impressed ware as well as undecorated
striated pottery – may date to the same period, or (especially the undecorated striated
pottery) may represent styles occurring in some stage of the development of Morby
Ware. As there are only few archaeometric datings available, the chronologies of
these pottery types are poorly known.
Throughout the preceding discussion, comparisons between Finnish and East-
Baltic – especially Estonian – materials and interpretations are stressed. With regard
to pottery, there is a clear resemblance between Bronze Age pottery in southwestern
Finland and Estonia, albeit on a general level. For the Pre-Roman Iron Age, special
importance is attributed to the Estonian Ilmandu style pottery. The similarities
between the Ilmandu style and Morby Ware seem more specific than the Bronze
Age pottery similarities. For at least part of the Ilmandu style pottery found in

300
northern Estonia one could actually use the classification Morby Ware as well. The
similarity of pottery styles may be due to increased contacts, which later (during
the late Pre-Roman Iron Age and the Early Roman Iron Age) become apparent in
other materials as well. This intensification of contacts in the northeastern part of
the Baltic also encompassed the eastern part of central Sweden. This western area
of East Baltic influence is characterized by the occurrence of striated ceramics and
cemeteries related to the Estonian tarand graves, as well as grave finds of Estonian-
Finnish character.
In addition to pottery, the preceding review contains some thoughts on other
types of Pre-Roman objects. Bronze objects presented prove the existence of Pre-
Roman ornaments, but the number of items is rather small. It seems evident that
a few cemeteries containing grave goods in the coastal areas of Finland have their
roots in the Pre-Roman Iron Age. When discussing iron objects, this interpretation
gains further confirmation. Still, especially with regard to bronze ornaments, the
increase of quantities of objects as well as an increase in object forms happened
later, during the first centuries AD.
The introduction of iron and iron technology, discussed in this chapter from the
point of view of Finland, is a development that coincides with the transition period,
but does not apparently in itself explain shifts in economy or settlement pattern.
Among the first objects to be manufactured were sickles and scythes, indicative
of the importance of agriculture, as well as axes, more effective for clearance
than before. The impact of iron tools may have been one factor speeding up the
development of agriculture, but it was just one element in a long process where
the very beginning of the Iron Age does not stand out. With regard to early iron
production, the picture is rather complicated, as the oldest iron extraction furnaces
and other traces of ancient iron working have been found in the northern part of
Finland. It seems evident that iron was introduced to the northern and eastern
parts if Finland along the same routes that had brought bronze technology to the
north. In the more southern parts of Finland, iron is present in the form of objects
found in cairns and cemeteries or as stray finds. Several types of objects can be
compared with East Baltic parallels.
One conclusion of the review of Finnish Pre-Roman material is that there
exist cemeteries with metal objects possible to discuss in a Pre-Roman context. A
prediction is that the possibility of dating cremated bones will, in the future, give
an opportunity of refining the chronology. Even before that, some chronological
adjustments regarding the deposition of metal objects in cairns and cemeteries are
possible. The chronological interpretations of artefacts have in many cases been
hampered by the fact that the theory of settlement continuity has not influenced the
chronological interpretation of cemeteries as much as one would have expected.

301
Many potential Pre-Roman artefact types have been dated primarily to the Early
Roman Period, one point being that cemeteries containing grave-goods started to
occur during that period. Already a brief review of some artefact types points to
the fact that objects were deposited in some cemeteries as early as the Pre-Roman
Iron Age. Even if the main increase of artefacts relates to the first centuries AD, the
idea of an abrupt start of deposition of grave-goods during the Early Roman Iron
Age cannot be supported.
With regard to Pre-Roman cairns, it is implied that they more often are related
to a permanent settlement site and cultivated land than, for example, to travelling
routes and marine landscapes, as during the Bronze Age. Pre-Roman cairns are
also smaller. It seems that one line of development was that cairns developed
during this time into a more distinctive shrine or cult site for the family, farm or kin
group. Pre-Roman cairns in the archipelago may, however, still be closely related
to a marine environment. The reason for changes in the location and size of cairns
should not only be discussed with reference to the traditional theory according to
which the stratified Bronze Age society developed into a more egalitarian social
order of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. As stated already in a previous chapter, it can be
questioned whether Bronze Age cairns, often built far from the settlements, can be
directly interpreted as representing stratification, i.e. as being erected for powerful
individuals or families. It is as likely that cairns could have been erected as public
monuments and came to symbolize the collectivity of the builders, whereas Early
Iron Age cairns – built closer to the settlement site by the settlers of that particular
site – have the more genuine character of a private shrine.
In the Early Iron Age – particularly during the Roman Iron Age – several new
types of cemeteries containing grave goods occurred in southwestern Finland.
Some archaeologists still maintain that these cemeteries were for the most part
built by foreigners. The preceding discussion instead foregrounds the idea that
the cemeteries reflect a period of increasing contacts and interaction due to new
contact networks opening up all over Europe. This led to the spread of new ideas
as well as items, used in diverse social contexts, including mortuary rituals of a
variety of forms. This does not exclude the possibility that objects deposited in
cemeteries were related to the expression of identity and attempts to consolidate
or promote the position of groups of people using the cemeteries. The main point
is, however, that expression of power and wealth may not necessarily have come
about due to immigration but also due to local competition.
When trying to conclude something about identity from the objects deposited
in Early Iron Age cemeteries, it seems evident that most cemeteries evidence a
strong East and South-East Baltic connection – at least if looking at ornaments
alone. Objects evidencing Scandinavian contacts are fewer, but, for example, some

302
Roman Iron Age forms of weaponry, some luxury objects of Scandinavian origin as
well as Roman imports have probably entered Finland through Scandinavia. One
possible reason for the dominating East Baltic elements could be that the people
buried in Finnish cemeteries were signalling an association with this cultural
sphere. If ornaments like fibulae were an important part of the individual habitus,
the ornaments probably came to signify a special relationship with people wearing
ornaments of the same origin. This is interesting also from the point of view of
immigration as there may have been bonds, bridging the Gulf of Finland, which
may at times have included movement of individuals or families from one shore to
the other, without involving the idea of immigrating foreigners.
House remains and other structures excavated at Pre-Roman settlement sites
still pose problems with regard to their interpretation. Two types of structures
can be emphasized, i.e. sooty and often deep fireplaces, as well as post-holes. Pit-
shaped hearths have often been referred to as cooking pits, but their function can
be interpreted in various ways, ranging from normal preparation of meals to more
specific forms of cooking, heating and production of smoke. Post-holes, on the
other hand, are problematic with regard to interpretations of the types of structures
they have belonged to. This problem is closely related to that of Finnish Bronze
Age houses, often suggested to have resembled Scandinavian-type longhouses.
In the discussion above, this idea is questioned, as indications of such houses are
few. Instead, the debate proceeds with a presentation of a theory according to
which post-holes in many cases may represent another type of building, where the
common characteristics are certain dimensions of the structure. The idea is based
on indications of post-built constructions, more hut-like than in the shape of a
longhouse, found at some Late Bronze Age or Pre-Roman settlement sites.
Seeking explanations for changes in settlement patterns during the Early Iron
Age inevitably leads to considerations of palaeoclimate as one possible factor.
Climate reconstructions based on proxy records are, however, difficult. This is due
to the fact that different proxies picture different elements of climate – humidity as
a combination of precipitation and vaporization, summer or winter temperature,
local factors etc. European climate is not just about north or south, warmth or
coldness, humidity or dryness, but a complex web of elements. During different
time periods, different elements or combinations of elements – referred above as
related to Mediterranean, Atlantic and continental ecotones – have had an impact
on local climate. One conclusion that can be drawn from some of the reviewed data
is that the Pre-Roman Iron Age was not a uniform period with regard to climate. The
most evident cooling in a long-term perspective happened during the Late Bronze
Age, whilst the Pre-Roman Iron Age probably saw periods of both favourable and
unfavourable climate.

303
 These climate oscillations may, in principle, have had effects on settlement and
subsistence, but the poor chronological precision of features of the Pre-Roman Iron
Age does not permit a detailed correlation with climate proxy data. In a long-term
perspective, the increasing land-use during the first millennium BC suggests that
climate oscillations did not lead to major setbacks. In many areas around the Baltic
the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age was a period of already developed
agriculture. In Finland the environmental impact of agriculture was still small, but
the scattered evidence of cereal cultivation in the form of Cerealia pollen increased
throughout the period. The greater number of sample sites containing evidence
of agriculture, as well as their continuous geographical expansion, stresses the
increased importance of farming. During the same time period, there is also an
increase in the amount of bone finds from domesticates.
The expansion of agriculture is difficult to follow in detail, as the ‘empiric limit’
(the period of increased cultivation) is often hard to define. Rather than a concurrent
step-wise development, the traces of early cultivation detectable in palynological
samples are site-specific until the stage of continuous cultivation is reached. In
most pollen diagrams this limit is dated to the Late Iron Age or the Middle Ages.
One important feature in this long-term development is the increased importance
of rye, visible in both pollen and macrofossile records – in Finland as well as in
other parts of northern and central Europe.
With regard to the development of farming, special emphasis has been given to
interpretations concerning the “second landnam” in Estonia. This process included
an intensification of land-use during a period starting with the Late Bronze Age and
ending in the Pre-Roman or (within some areas) the Roman Iron Age. Arable land
was divided between settlement units in a more organized way than before and
private ownership of land was probably established. Increased claims on land and
land-use privileges led to more intense territorial behaviour, visible in the building
of field systems and the erection of new types of cemeteries. In Finland practically
no remains of field systems in the form of clearance baulks have been found and
the dating (with regard to the Early Iron Age) of cross-ploughed field remains has
proved difficult. Nevertheless, this cannot mean that fields did not occur. The lack
of ‘Celtic’ or ‘Baltic’ fields is probably mainly due to differing geological conditions,
like different types of soils, as well as to a more intense clearance and recent land-
use when compared to areas where field remains have been preserved in Estonia.
What is similar, however, is the occurrence of Early Iron Age cemeteries, indicative
of a similar territorial behaviour and sociocultural development.
In the preceding discussion, the impact of immigration was questioned, but
otherwise the impact of foreign influences reaching the northern shores of the
Baltic has been stressed. This was a reality already during the Bronze Age when

304
the two main transmitters of influences were the Scandinavian Bronze Culture and
(during the Late Bronze Age) the Lusatian culture in the area of present Poland.
It should also be considered whether contacts to the southern part of the Baltic
could have continued during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, although less evident in the
archaeological material. The idea of a close connection between Morby Ware and
pottery from the southern part of the Baltic is, however, rejected. The similarities
that exist may to some degree follow general stylistic ideas of its time, but the
differences are more obvious than the resemblances. A new period of interaction
– or an intensification of prevailing contacts – later became visible during the
Roman Iron Age, when imported objects from the southern part of the Baltic occur
in cemeteries in the East Baltic area as well as in eastern Sweden and on the Finnish
mainland.
In a simplistic model presented by Brun (1994), three concentric hierarchically
organised semicircles depict the economic situation in central and northern Europe
in relation to the Mediterranean economy, which is represented by the innermost
circle. Northern Europe belongs to the third zone, which was cut off from its former
connections with central Europe as a result of the second zone’s integration into a
Mediterranean economy in the Late Bronze Age. Northern Europe subsequently
entered a period of economic devolution. This changed in the late second century
BC, when the second semi-circle became the zone of Celtic centres, and trade
functions again shifted to the north. In some areas the result was the rise of a new
elite, marked by the display of wealth in burials, and a new prestige economy that
can be seen in the rich imports of Celtic goods. Somewhat later trading possibilities
were further improved by the stable conditions of the Roman Empire. Brun’s model
could hypothetically be extended by a fourth zone, encompassing southwestern
Finland. In this zone, incorporation into European trade networks – and probably
the development of a new socio-political structure – occurred somewhat later,
starting with the Roman Period.

305
306
6. Iron Age settlement development – a discussion

6.1. From individuals to society

In the previous chapters the archaeological material from Kemiönsaari has been
presented, along with comparative material from the archipelago and the mainland.
The difference between Iron Age archaeological data from Kemiönsaari and that of
the mainland has been underlined, stressing a change occurring during the Pre-
Roman Iron Age or soon afterwards. The Early Iron Age has been discussed more
specifically, both from a general point of view and with a focus on the Finnish
material of the period. One of the conclusions of this discussion is that the adoption
of agriculture as a means of subsistence did take place before changes reflected in
the archaeological material. A sedentary way of life, with the farm, the fields and
pastures, and the nearby cairns of the ancestors as main elements – the general
surroundings of the Iron Age mode of life – presumably arose on Kemiönsaari
before the change. This hypothesis – especially regarding the early introduction of
agriculture – gains support from the environmental considerations addressed in
chapter 4. As a conclusion, the settlement development of Kemiönsaari, as reflected
in the archaeological and environmental data, seems to have followed general lines
of development comparable with mainland settlement up until the Iron Age AD. The
materials, however, do not give any explicit reason for the divergence taking place
after that. What the palynological evidence suggests, showing sporadic cultivation
during both the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, as well as soil types, present climate,
and agricultural qualification rates is that the area would also have been suitable
enough for a similar type of agriculture and settlement pattern as on the mainland
during the Iron Age AD. This suggests that the causes of change should be looked
for in terms of changes taking place in some other aspect rather than environment,
technology and subsistence. This should not be understood as a rejection of the
ecological approach, which has been important for the understanding of settlement
and land-use on Kemiönsaari, but the development cannot be understood simply
from a focus on ecology and economy. Furthermore, the human being and societal
factors should be foregrounded due to the fact that even economy, technology and
utilisation of the environment are fundamentally social.
Society in general, or basic social organization can be thought of as based on a
set of informal, unwritten rules by which human life is structured (Mignon 1993:
295). This means that society, as well as culture, is dependent on communication.
Communication is about meaning and coherence, which is formed in relation to
and together with other people – communication can be thought of as coordinated
management of meaning (Axelsson 2001: 85). Understanding communication is

307
one means of understanding society and processes of social change. Although
society or social organization as such does not refer directly to individuals or
communication between individuals, a society is nevertheless based on a specific
group of people who act jointly, bound together by the exchange of information
and by common ideas. This is probably not a proper definition of society, but the
idea is that a change in the archaeological material is a reflection of individuals in
a society acting in a certain way. Motives for change-oriented behaviour, as well as
the making of the final decision, can be individual or societal to a varying degree,
but the link between the individual and the society is always present.
The following discussion starts with an attempt to understand the possible size
of the population constituting the Iron Age society within the study area. After
that, the idea of clustering – or aggregation – of sites is examined more closely, as is
the possibility of abandonment of sites as a cultural process. Finally, an explanation
of changes in the settlement pattern is sought on the level of socio-political
development; the concept of power is introduced, and the possible relationship
between power and the emergence of a new geographical distribution of settlement
archaeological data is addressed.

6.2. Palaeodemography

6.2.1. An Estonian example

It is impossible to understand cultural processes without some idea of the density

of population in a given study area. Assumptions concerning population might
not necessarily be thought of in terms of numbers, but in our mind we often
translate archaeological concepts into images of a living population. The use of
the archaeological record to estimate population numbers, however, is a highly
complex and dangerous task; the empirical data are scanty and of uneven
quality (Hassan 1981: 261), and the methods of palaeodemography have in fact
been severely criticised. This criticism of the methodology points, for example,
to the numerous causes of statistical error in demographic calculations based on
cemeteries, even if based on well preserved skeletal materials (Bocquet-Appel &
Masset 1982; Marciniak 1995). Even more difficult do the interpretations become,
if based on other types of archaeological data, theoretical birth and death rates or
extrapolations from historical sources. It would be a mistake, however, to discard
the whole methodology, as this is the only way of expressing explicit calculations
of population size and density. Exact numbers are impossible to achieve, but it may
be possible to work out some lower and upper limits.

308
 Lang and Ligi (1991; Lang 1995b) have discussed Early Iron Age populations
in northern Estonia, using demographic calculations to estimate the number of
people and the kinds of settlement units related to certain Early Iron Age grave
types. The main starting point is their criticism of an earlier interpretation,
according to which groups of stone-cist graves and tarand graves were cemeteries
used by several families, i.e. one stone-cist grave or one cell in a tarand grave would
represent one family (cf. Jaanits et al. 1982: 200, 242-243). The calculations indicate
that this interpretation is impossible (if not assuming that only a small minority
of the population was buried in the cemeteries). Applying a simple demographic
formula, K = M / SA, the number of people in such a unit of several families can be
shown to produce too many burials (Lang & Ligi 1991; cf. Lang 1995b; 1996). In this
formula, K represents the size of the population, M the number of burials, S the
death-rate and A the length of the period during which the cemetery was in use.
The death-rate applied by Lang & Ligi is 40 ‰, which is a figure used earlier for
similar calculations in Scandinavia (Ambrosiani 1964: 204-205; 1973; cf. Hyenstrand
1974: 87).
Another interesting method of estimating the number of people buried in tarand
graves during the Early Iron Age has also been discussed by Lang & Ligi (1991: 221-
225; cf. Lang 1995b; 1996). Here the numbers of brooches, bracelets and finger rings
found in the cemeteries were used as a basis for estimating the probable number
of individuals buried. The numbers of ornaments found in cemeteries where the
number of burials is known provide coefficients which can be applied in cases where
the number of burials is unknown. These calculations give further reason to believe
that the primary settlement unit in Early Iron Age Estonia was the family or the
single farm – not an unit consisting of several farms. Similar calculations have not
been made for Finnish materials (except for a case from Ketohaka in Salo, included
in the Estonian calculations). As stated at the beginning of this study, however, the
general idea of Finnish Iron Age communities is that single farms were dominant
at least until the Merovingian period, when large cremation cemeteries may be
indicative of village formation.

6.2.2. Iron Age population in Finland

Another way of approaching the question of Iron Age population is by extrapolation,

starting with information on population figures found in historical sources and
using probable population growth rates to calculate backwards. This method
has several obvious biases as the growth rate may have altered due to changes in
various aspects of life, including the economy, technology, or health and nutrition.

309
Despite the uncertain outcome, such calculations offer one way of estimating the
number of people that produced the archaeological record of a certain area.
Information on medieval Finnish population numbers, density and growth
rates are sparse. Estimates can only be based on information in tax records giving
the numbers of villages and farms. This information must be combined with
interpretations of the types and ages of different taxation systems. By this means
Orrman (1996) has attempted to calculate the number of farmsteads in the mid-14th
century, relying partly on the assumption of a constant rate of settlement growth
from the 14th to the mid-16th century. The actual development was presumably
much more complicated, as there were probably periods of faster or slower
settlement growth. Regression may also have occurred, even if there is no direct
evidence, for instance, of an impact of the 14th century plague.153 The occurrence of
deserted farms in the 15th century, however, indicates some difficulties in agrarian
settlement during that century (Orrman 1996: 140). Orrman’s calculation thus gives
a somewhat simplified but still interesting idea of the number of farms in medieval
Finland. According to these calculations, in the mid-14th century there were 12,200
farms in Finland (excluding the Åland Islands); in the mid-16th century there were
32,800. Taking 6-10 people as an average figure for inhabitants per farmstead,
the 16th century population of the mainland reflected in the tax records could
be around 200,000 – 330,000 (e.g. Lehtosalo-Hilander 1984: 274). It is possible to
count backwards from these estimates, using for example an average demographic
growth figure of 3 ‰. There would thus have been about 6,000 – 10,250 inhabitants
around 400 AD and about 50,000 – 85,000 inhabitants by the end of the Iron Age.154
An increase rate of 3 ‰ or even 4 ‰ is rather modest; if it had been higher it could

153
In both Denmark and Norway the plague of the mid 14th century has been used as an
explanation for a break in the population growth; as far as Sweden and Finland are
concerned, the picture is unclear, but, for example, the fact that the price of land fell
(Pitkänen 1994: 29), and donations to pious institutions reached a peak (Myrdal 1999:
116), suggests a smaller 14th century population pressure also in Sweden.
154
The total population of present-day Finland before the introduction of food production
(i.e. the Neolithic) has been estimated to be some thousands of people. The amount
could have been 5,000 – 10,000 at the most (Pitkänen 1994: 22-23). If using an estimate
of 1 inhabitant per 100 km2, which is often applied when estimating hunter-gatherer
settlement of the boreal forest zone, the number of inhabitants of present-day Finland
(covering 337,000 km2) would have reached 3,000-3,500 people (cf. Grünthal 2002: 12).
When these figures are compared with the estimates concerning the Iron Age it becomes
obvious that population growth must have been extremely slow, maybe due to a short
average lifetime or a low birth rate (Pitkänen 1994: 23-24). Another comparison has
been made with regard to the number of people living within the area of identified Late
Iron Age settlement in the mid 18th century when calculated from ecclesiastical parish
registers. According to this material, about 150,000 people then lived within the area
(Pitkänen 1994: 26). The population at the end of the Iron Age must, however, have been
considerably smaller.

310
mean that the population of the Late Iron Age maybe was not as big as 50,000 people
but somewhat smaller, such as only a few tens of thousands (cf. Pitkänen 1994:
26, 39). These figures have been compared with estimates for the Swedish central
settlement area in Uppland, Västmanland and Södermanland, where the number
of inhabitants around 500 AD could have been 3,000-10,000 persons (e.g. Lehtosalo-
Hilander 1984: 274; Miettinen, M. 1998: 152). In Estonia the medieval population
– probably also the Iron Age population – was bigger than that of Finland. For
example, the 12th century total population of Estonia has been estimated to be
about 150,000 whereas the Finnish population would have been around 100,000
(Grünthal 2002: 12).

6.2.3. The population of the study area

In Sweden and Finland reliable population statistics are available from the mid-
18th century onward. From this period to the present the population increase was
rapid, with an annual growth rate of around 10 ‰, which is quite a high figure.
During the last century, however, population growth has slowed down, indicative
of the "third stage of the demographic cycle" (Welinder 1979: 17-20), characterised
by the falling birth rate typical of industrialised societies. Within the study area, the
present number of people is a little more than 86,000, approximately 14,000 (16 %)
of whom are Swedish-speaking (Suomen tilastollinen vuosikirja 1998).
Published information on the number of people in the same area around 1750
is more difficult to find and interpret. One difficulty lies in changes in the borders
of parishes and chapel-units in the eastern part of the study area, meaning that
counts according to present municipalities are not easily presented. According to
information on hand, the total number must have been about 25,000 people. This
can be concluded from a count based on published information concerning single
parishes and areas (Fig. 113) as well as the original population statistics concerning
approximately the same area. In the latter case (Jutikkala 1945: 90-91) the number
is more than 25,000, but the statistics include some areas outside the present study
area, like Kiikala. The total number counted this way for the year 1749 is 26,475
people, if including a correction concerning the Perniö parish proposed by Pitkänen
(1979: 39). These results mean that the average population growth inside the study
area since 1750 has for some reason not been as fast as in other parts of Finland.
The average annual growth rate has been around 5 ‰, i.e. about half of the figure
for Finland in general.

311
 District Amount Fig. 113. Numbers of people inside the study area around
1750 according to information gathered from several sources
Halikko 2419
(Smeds 1948: 534; Oja 1958: 95; 1961: 173; Lehto 1959: 18;
Kemiö 4597
Granholm & Häggblom 1969: 27; Innamaa 1973: 384; 1982:
Kuusjoki 555 14; Suistoranta 1985: 76; 1997: 29-41; Villstrand 1987: 15-
Muurla 500 17; Havia 1989: 436; Alifrosti 1990: 183; Pitkänen 1992:
Nauvo 1551 255; Aminoff-Winberg 2001: 321; Vähäkangas 2006: 389).
Paimio 2359
The information regarding Kuusjoki is for 1786. The figures
for Dragsfjärd and Västanfjärd are included in the figure for
Parainen 2854
Kemiö. The figure for Muurla is based on an estimate of 378
Perniö 3228 people for the year 1643 (Oja 1945: 70).
Pertteli 334
Piikkiö 1500
Salo (Uskela) 1500
Sauvo 2720
Särkisalo 389
Sum 24506

If the total number of people inside the study area in 1750 was, in round numbers
25,000, this figure could be a starting point for extrapolations concerning Iron Age
population. There is, however, some information concerning population growth
rates even prior to 1750, indicating a very rapid growth already during the early 18th
century. In the whole of Finland the population seems to have increased between
1721 and 1749 from 306,000 to 405,000 (Mäntylä 1988: 337). In Salo (Uskela) the
number of people rose from 1,211 in 1721 to over 1,500 around 1750 (Vähäkangas
2006: 389). An even faster rate of increase has been calculated for Kemiönsaari,
where the population increased from roughly 3,000 in 1722 to 4,597 around 1750
(Villstrand 1987: 15-17; Suistoranta 1997: 29-41). If the population growth had been
close to the average – let us say 35 % – the early 18th century population of the study
area could have been around 18,500.
The 17th century, on the other hand, was not a period of rapid population
increase. On the contrary: the impact of the wars Sweden fought from the end of
the 16th century to the early 18th century as well as some severe years of famine
resulted in a long period of fluctuation and even stagnation of the population
growth (cf. Pitkänen 1994: 34-39). Large areas were too poor to pay tax; many
farms were abandoned, the villages grew smaller and the population diminished
(Harju 1995: 65). The 16th and 17th century stagnation can also be exemplified within
the study area (Hiltunen & Luoto 1985: 446). This means that the figure of 18,500
people may actually be a reasonable figure to use as a 16th century population
estimate for the study area. This, of course, is where estimates start to be more in

312
the nature of a guess than something based on real calculations.155 When we move
further back, into the Middle Ages, we also need to try to estimate the impact of
Swedish colonization. One way to do this would be to use the present-day 16 %
figure for Swedish-speakers in the population, but this is most probably too low. If
we assume that in the mid-18th century the population of the archipelago parishes
on Kemiönsaari as well as Nauvo and (partly) Parainen for the most part had a
Swedish-speaking population, a figure like 30 % would seem more appropriate.
According to this estimate, perhaps 13,000 people living in the area in the 16th
century could have been descendants of the Iron Age inhabitants. If one would
like to go even further, the count could be made considering only the population of
the mainland municipalities, i.e. leaving out all islanders according to the mid-18th
century proportion (38 %). This would leave the number 11,500, which is suggested
as being the minimum number of 16th century people with roots in the Iron Age of
the area.
In calculating prehistoric or early historical population increases, annual growth
rates of 3 ‰ (e.g. Lehtosalo-Hilander 1984: 274; cf. Miettinen, M. 1998: 152), 2 ‰
(e.g. Hyenstrand 1974: 87-88) or 1.6 ‰ (Friberg & Friberg 1974: 7-9, 15) have been
used. Using similar figures, growth curves for the study area can be constructed
extrapolating from the 16th century estimate. The formula for population increase
in the case of a known initial population P(t) = P(0) • (1 + r) t (Welinder 1979: 36) can
be altered to P(0) = P(t) • (1 + r) -t in order to calculate the initial population from the
known outcome. In these formulas, P(0) refers to the initial population, t to time,
P(t) to population after a time t has passed, and r to the growth rate. A comparison
of the constant annual growth curves of 3 ‰, 2 ‰ and 1.5 ‰ shows a considerable
difference (Fig. 114). What seems evident, however, is that the curves (except the
3 ‰ growth, which is evidently too high on the average) point to an Early Iron
Age population comprising something like a few hundred people rather than
thousands, and that the Late Iron Age population within the study area may have
consisted of a few thousand people. This is about as far it is possible to interpret
these rough estimates. In reality the annual growth has not been constant; there
was probably an increased growth rate towards the Middle Ages. Modelling this,

155
One problem is that consistent 17th century population statistics do not exist. The best
source concerning the population within the study area is a document counting all
population of the Uskela ecclesiastical parish in 1643, except the under 12 year olds. The
total number of people mentioned is 1,754. By taking into account the probable number
of men taking part in the war of the time, as well as the probable number of children,
an estimate of 2,652 people for the total population of the area has been reached (Oja
1945: 70). This population has (based on the calculation) been distributed inside the
area according to present municipalities as follows: Salo 882, Perniö (the Kirjakkala part
only) 91, Muurla 378, Pertteli 563, Kuusjoki 209, and Kiikala (outside the study area)
529.

313
 12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

3
2000
2
1.5

0
2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000

Fig. 114. A comparison of tentative annual population

growth curves (‰) for the study area based on an initial
population of 11 500 people in the 16th century.

however, is beyond the scope of this study. Lang & Ligi (1991: 217, Joon. 1) have
assumed a 1 ‰ growth from 500 BC to 200 AD, a 2 ‰ growth 200-800 AD, and a 3
‰ growth during the period 800-1200 AD. Although these figures may produce a
plausible population growth curve, the calculation is still purely hypothetical.
The extrapolation concerning the study area can be compared with a discussion
by Pihlman (2004: 62-68) on numbers of farms and inhabitants in the Turku area
(comprising the Lieto, Maaria and Raisio parishes). Pihlman has hypothetically tried
to calculate the number of settlement units at the end of the Iron Age by multiplying
the number of cemeteries by two, and counting the number of inhabitants at 5.5
people per unit. In other words, each cemetery would represent two farms, while 5.5
people, on the average, would inhabit each farm. The calculation gave the numbers
165, 154 and 121 inhabitants for the Lieto, Maaria and Raisio parishes, respectively,
i.e. altogether 440 inhabitants. When the same calculation is performed on the
material of the present study area, the 34 Late Iron Age cemetery sites registered
(uncertain cases included) would indicate a total population of only 374 people
within the whole area, i.e. less than in the much smaller area studied by Pihlman,
and dramatically less than a few thousand people suggested by the extrapolation.
The fact that this cannot be the case is illustrated by a comparison of the number
of early medieval villages paying tax according to Finnish law. Within the area
studied by Pihlman there are a total of 194 such villages, while there are 370

314
within the present study area (i.e. the Halikko, Paimio, Perniö, Piikkiö, Sauvo, and
Uskela parishes). How many farms there were within these villages is difficult to
conclude, but everything suggests that the number was low. Pihlman (2004: 64) has
presented data indicating 1-2 farms per village and, for example, according to tax
records, the number of farms per village in the Halikko, Paimio, Perniö, Piikkiö,
Sauvo and Uskela parishes was still in 1556 as low as 2.4 on the average (Oja 1955:
86-87). If using the quite low number of 4.5 inhabitants per early medieval farm, as
suggested by Pihlman, the early medieval population number for the present study
area would have been in the range of 1,665 – 3,330 (basing the calculation on the
numbers of 1 or 2 farms per village). These numbers are somewhat closer to what
could have been expected from the extrapolation, but still rather low. One factor
greatly affecting the outcome of the calculation is the amount of people regarded
as belonging to each farm. If the number had been considerably higher than
suggested by Pihlman, the results would change significantly. If hypothetically
using the number of 9.4 people per farm as calculated from Aulis Oja’s (1945: 70)
estimation concerning the Uskela ecclesiastical parish in 1643, the early medieval
population of the study area would have been in the range of 3,478-6,956 (basing
the calculation on the numbers of 1 or 2 farms per village). This would be more in
line with the extrapolation, as would the same calculation based on the number of
farms in 1556 within the mainland parishes of the present study area. If using the
number 9.4 inhabitants per farm, the 1514 farms in the area (Oja 1955: 86-87) would
give the result of 14,232 inhabitants, which is somewhat more than suggested in the
extrapolation above, but still a plausible number.
If something can be concluded from this comparison, it is first of all that the
number of inhabitants per medieval farm suggested by the extrapolation is very
high in comparison with the number used by Pihlman (2004). If the numbers
presented in this study are too high, this could be due to several factors, one being
the difficulty of estimating the early 18th century population growth, another
the problem of estimating the impact of immigration. Still, it is unlikely that the
population numbers presented are significantly excessive. Rather, the average
number of people per farm within the early medieval villages reflected in the tax
records of this area must have been higher than 4.5.156

156
With regard to Pihlman’s (2004) calculations, the main point seems to be the idea that
the medieval farm or household consisted of fewer persons than that of the Iron Age,
which would be one factor explaining the seemingly massive settlement and population
growth from the Iron Age to the Middle Ages. The exact figures used by Pihlman (and
foregrounded in the discussion above), on the other hand, are to a certain extent only a
play with numbers and evidently not meant as a model to be applied for all areas.

315
 Regarding the Late Iron Age, it is unthinkable that the population numbers
of the study area would have been as low as in the outcome of the calculation
based on Pihlman’s (2004) hypothesis. Thus the number of farms represented by
the cemeteries within the study area must have been much higher than 2, on the
average, if using Pihlman’s number of 5.5 inhabitants per Iron Age settlement
unit. This is true at least when taking into account only the cemeteries registered
and dated to the Late Iron Age so far. Just a few cemeteries have been thoroughly
excavated and there may even be cemeteries that have not yet been found. Some
cemeteries dated to earlier periods might in reality have a longer continuity and
some of the 28 undated cemeteries (uncertain cases included) may also belong to
the Late Iron Age.
Returning to the estimation of population growth within the study area, a final
comment should be made concerning the Late Iron Age and the early Middle Ages.
This time span as a period of faster population increase is indicated by calculations
according to which there was a big population increase in Europe in general from
about 700 AD (or at least from 900 AD) to the 14th century. During the period from
about 1000 to 1300 AD, the population increased threefold in the central and western
part of Europe. In England, the population rose from about one million in 1086 to
almost four millions in 1347; in Denmark population increase has been estimated
as 40 % and in Sweden the population increased threefold during the period
1000-1350 (Olsson & Thomasson 2001: 12). The Late Iron Age and early medieval
population growth thus is an issue relevant for both central and northern Europe.157
Also regarding Finland, the acceleration of Late Iron Age population increase is a
factor that probably was a reality. As exemplified earlier concerning the present
study area, the archaeological and palynological materials suggest the Late Iron
Age – especially the Viking Age – to be a period of expansion. One possible aspect
of this development is that it was related to population increase. It could have been
a case of rapidly accelerating population growth, or steady growth in the range of
normal development, which over time exceeded some carrying capacity threshold,
with the consequence of increased utilisation and colonization of new land.

157
The acceleration of population growth could be questioned only in the sense that a
rapid increase in land utilisation, and probably also population, may in certain areas
have happened already prior to the Late Iron Age. In the case of Uppland, in the eastern
part of Central Sweden, for example, this has been discussed in a Roman Period context
(Göthberg 2000).

316
6.2.4. Individuals and settlement units

The idea suggested by the above calculations of a couple of hundred people living in
the study area during the Early Iron Age is comparable to the density of settlement
suggested by Lang & Ligi (1991: 233) in the case of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in
Estonia. If we apply the average density of settlement proposed by Lang & Ligi
for the beginning of the Pre-Roman Iron Age (0.15 persons per square kilometre)
and the present land area of the study area, the result would be a figure of 467
inhabitants, which may be somewhat high, but is still more or less in accordance
with what has been presented above. Starting from the idea of a couple of hundred
or a few hundred people, the next question to ask would probably be: what kinds
of households were people likely to have lived in? How many people do the
settlement sites or cemeteries – the proposed single farms – reflect?
Estimates concerning the number of family members in Central European
Bronze Age and Early Iron Age communities differ somewhat, but are generally
quite low. A single family may, for example, have consisted of 3.2-4.1 individuals,
and a typical Central European prehistoric agricultural community may have been
composed of 2-3 (max 6) families (Dreslerová 1995: 150). In another case the average
family size has been estimated at 5-6 persons (or slightly less), living in hamlets or
dispersed villages of 4-7 farmsteads (Bergmann 1997). Within the Lusatian culture
6-8 persons per house have been estimated (Bukowski 1990: 104). In the case of
Bronze Age Scandinavia, Wigren (1987: 101-104) has tried to use the number of
settlement sites as a starting point instead of calculating the population from the
number of graves. In the light of what has been said earlier in this study concerning
Bronze Age cairns, this could be a good choice in cases where suitable settlement
site materials exist. With reference to Ambrosiani (1964), Wigren notes that ten
persons per household may be relevant for the Late Iron Age, but she considers
seven persons as probably more appropriate for the Bronze Age. In Finland an
Iron Age settlement unit has hypothetically been interpreted as representing
an extended family of 5.5 (Pihlman 2004: 68), 8-14 (Honkanen 1981: 133) or 6-20
persons (cf. Miettinen, M. 1998: 150). The term ‘extended family’ in these cases does
not necessarily refer to a family consisting of three generations. Due to the low
average lifetime such families were rare.
Within the present study area, Hirviluoto (1991: 137) has suggested 5-7 (evidently
adult) individuals as the number of inhabitants per farm in Salo during the 4th
century. The number of farms calculated by her is 4-5. Hirviluoto, however, posits
a higher number of inhabitants, referring to the presence of different generations,
and obtains a final count of 75-80 inhabitants in the Uskela river valley during the 4th
century. An earlier approximation for both the Halikko and Salo area together had

317
given a result of 82 persons during the 7th century and 371 persons during the 11th
century (cf. Hirviluoto 1991: 137), which is lower than Hirviluoto’s own count. The
grounds for these estimates are somewhat obscure, but the higher figures obtained
by Hirviluoto may well be in line with the growth curves discussed above.
From these sporadic examples, we may conclude that the number of people
in a family, household or farmstead during the Bronze Age or Iron Age has been
estimated as falling within a range between 3 and 20. 158 As the best figure for the
Early Iron Age presumably lies somewhere around a range of 5-10 persons per
household, it can be concluded that Early Iron Age settlement inside the study
area must have consisted of tens of households. This is interesting, as there are not
tens of Early Iron Age cemeteries within the study area to indicate this number of
households. If we look at the number of cemetery sites from the Late Roman Period
(when graves with grave goods are found within the whole mainland part of the
study area), no more than 22 separate sites or structures registered as cemetery
sites have been found, some of which probably represent the same farmstead. This
suggests that either the estimates of population and household numbers are too
high, or – more likely – not all people and households are reflected in the cemetery
materials. Furthermore, if the cemeteries represent only some of the existing
households, this means that the cemetery site distribution does not necessarily
depict the pattern of settlement at the time. The existence of settlement sites outside
the areas of cemeteries is thus a possibility that cannot be excluded. This is the
way in which Iron Age settlement has been dealt with by other researchers lately,
the main point of importance being that the distribution of antiquities does not
represent the distribution of settlement directly. This has, for example, been pointed
out concerning the Estonian Bronze Age and Early Iron Age cemeteries, which
evidently picture only the religious and social behaviour of one part of society
rather than the location of the whole area of settlement (Lang 2000a: 22-23). The
distribution of settlement must have been wider (including interior Estonia) than
the location of cemeteries (mainly occurring in coastal Estonia). This is actually
proved by the distribution of settlement sites and pollen analytical evidence.
In the same manner Iron Age settlement in southwestern Finland has been
regarded as more widespread than the distribution of cemeteries. According to one
view, the cemeteries would have been related to old farms practising permanent field
cultivation, while there would have been other farms without cemeteries further
away, being, however, part of the same economical unit (Pihlman 2004). In such a

158
This is comparable with figures concerning the historical period. For example, the 2,652
people estimated from the 1643 document concerning the Uskela ecclesiastical parish
lived in an area where the number of farms at the same time was 283 (Oja 1945: 70).
According to this, the average number of people per farm was 9.4.

318
scenario the cemetery would represent the landowner or an important family and
form the core of an unit of economical co-operation in which several other farms
could have participated. The cemeteries were the centres of rituals of the unit,
forming a symbolical pact, where an ancestor cult and fertility cult intertwined.
In this model, presented by Pihlman (2004), the location of cemeteries would thus
not picture the distribution of settlement or economic activities. The rejection of the
idea of correlation between cemeteries and the area of permanent settlement also
means that the distribution of cemeteries cannot be used for a comparison between
the mainland and the archipelago in terms of settlement continuity. This view, of
course, does not make the basic problems regarding the archipelago/mainland
dichotomy disappear. There are still problems regarding the understanding of the
differences between the development on the mainland and in the archipelago.
A further problem is how to actually identify the system (including its
geographical distribution) of economical units including outlying farms. One
indication may be found in historical sources. In the Historical Period all farms
of the former larger units would, according to Pihlman (2004), have started to
be taxed as independent units and the former system would have split up. The
farms without cemeteries described by Pihlman thus would have been situated
within the area that is later discernible in tax records due to paying tax according
to “Finnish law”. This would mean that the outlying farms would actually not
have been situated very distant from the areas where cemeteries occur. Even so,
the archaeological identification of outlying farms is still problematic. At present,
registered settlement sites and other archaeological traces of Iron Age settlement
– permanent or seasonal – clearly outside the distribution area of cemeteries are
almost non-existent. What is also important to maintain is the idea that, regardless
of the overall settlement distribution not being directly related to cemeteries, the
distribution of cemeteries (and settlement site clusters) is not sporadic but indicates
important settlement areas. Furthermore, the cemeteries (and cup-marked stones)
can be regarded as indicative of areas where special rituals were performed, i.e.
signifying these areas as a kind of ritual centre as well.

6.3. The problem of aggregation

6.3.1. The general idea

Since the adoption of food production, many populations all over the world have
tended not only to increase but also to group themselves on the landscape in denser
numbers. Under certain natural and cultural conditions there seem to be advantages

319
for a society or a segment of society in forming clustered settlements. The process
that produces spatial clustering of households, communities, or archaeological
habitation sites can be called ‘aggregation’ (Cordell et al. 1994: 6). This term is often
connected with the formation of villages or town-like communities, but here it refers
to the spatial clustering of sites – or certain types of sites – within microregions
discernible in the study area during the Iron Age.
The decisions leading to aggregation may have been due to diverse factors,
such as the natural environment, technology, social and political structure,
ideology, economics, demography, health and disease, or the impact of other
cultures (or social groups); the phenomenon of aggregation is often a reflection
of changes in the social or natural environment, and may in turn initiate further
change (Gumerman 1994: 7-8; cf. Cordell et al. 1994). When a community increases
in size and in the number of interacting individuals, there is an increase in the
kinds of social forms that can be produced. The advantages of clustered settlement
and closer relationships between members of a community are indicated by the
worldwide distribution of this form of life. There may, however, be disadvantages
to some segments within the society, as individual, family, occupational, class or
other subgroup needs may be sublimated for the perceived greater good of the
whole society (Gumerman 1994: 9).
In aggregated communities some kind of higher-level decision-making usually
exist, which may have developed before aggregation or be a result of it. Social
arrangements have probably been modified to accommodate the increased
interaction of people, in order to prevent a degenerated quality and capacity of
decision making (Johnson 1982). This behavioural approach towards settlement
studies stresses information and communication as main elements of society.
Settlement patterns can thus be defined as the spatial configuration of information
flows, and boundaries as constraints on information flows (Root 1983: 200, 207).
One negative outcome of modified decision-making in aggregated communities
is that there will probably be greater discrimination in access to information and
resources (Johnson 1982: 409; Gumerman 1994: 9; Gumerman & Gell-Mann 1994:
31). Positive effects of aggregation might include better defence and more effective
exploitation of agricultural land, as well as efficient organization of labour and
food distribution (Cordell et al. 1994: 110-111).
One way of dealing with the organizational dimension of the process of
aggregation has been to use Johnson’s (1982) theory of ‘scalar stress’, suggesting
that efficient decision-making entails a limit of about six participants. When
the number of participants is higher, scalar communication stress increases and
decision performance starts to decline (Johnson 1982: 394-395). This may mean
that communities of six or more units would need some higher level of decision

320
making. Following these thoughts, an aggregated site or community has actually
been suggested to be archaeologically defined as one with evidence of more than
six contemporaneous households (Cordell et al. 1994: 132). This idea combines two
aspects of aggregation – a physical (or geographical) one and a psychological one.
These are certainly interrelated, but the archaeological definition has to rely on the
identification of physical clustering, i.e. it should rely on something measurable in
space. The interpretation of social form or organizational level of an aggregated
community, on the other hand, can make use of ideas of psychological and social
behaviour.
Many studies have suggested a strong correlation between population density
and social complexity (cf. McGuire 1983: 95-96). What is important to point out,
however, is that this correlation is present only if a wide range of both small
and large organizational units is considered. Social or political complexity does
not seem to correlate with size when organizational units in the range of 50-500
people are considered; in this range significant variation occurs (Johnson 1982:
391). Although there is no straightforward correlation between population size
and societal complexity, there seem to be some "pan-human thresholds" of group
size regulating organization. Kosse (1990) has suggested that these numerical
thresholds relate to underlying regularities in the long-term memory. For example,
in classifying the natural environment, human beings usually use a set of items
numbering around 500; occasionally the addition of lower hierarchical levels may
extended it to 2,000-2,500 items (Kosse 1990: 277). The number 500 (or the range
200-800) has been seriously discussed also in the case of individual knowledge of
place-names. There seems to be a strong correlation between toponymic density
and population density, suggesting a similar cognitive limitation of the toponymic
information possible to possess as limitations suggested by ethnobiological and
socio-demographic studies (Hunn 1994). Ethnographic examples suggest that
when more than 150 people are considered, information flow begins to be regulated
through more formal, ritual channels; in a group of 500 people information can
still reach everyone, but in the range of 500-2,500 people the process slows down
considerably, and has to be regulated in order to prevent errors in decision making
(Kosse 1990: 284; cf. Feinman 1995: 260-261).
As significant organizational complexity seems to be associated with com­muni­
ties larger or considerably larger than 2,000 people, there is no reason to assume
that in Early Iron Age southwestern Finland a couple of hundred or a few hundred
people would have produced a complex societal organization. If the terminology
and ideas of Kosse (1990: Table 5) are directly applied to the suggested Iron Age
population size of the study area, the Early Iron Age level of integration could
have been the “family level”, the settlement pattern of which is usually dispersed

321
and where the regional network comprises 500-2,500 people. During the time
span of the Iron Age the level of integration could have shifted to a local group
level, characterised by a more aggregated settlement pattern and a regional
network exceeding 2,500 people. If clustering or aggregation of sites within certain
microregions occurred together with increased societal complexity already during
the Early Iron Age, it must therefore have had other causes than just population
growth.

6.3.2. Villages and territories

As the formation of villages was not a major question in this study, this level of
aggregation has not been examined more closely. There are, however, a couple of
facts concerning historical villages that must be briefly described in order to better
understand the nature of settlement within the study area. Systematic information
on villages in southwestern Finland appears for the first time in cadastral records
from 1540. These do not contain information on villages situated on land owned
by the church or the nobles. It was ten years later that the first ecclesiastical tax
books, containing information on all villages, appeared. From these records it can
be concluded that the average number of farms in the villages of the study area is
rather low (Fig. 115). It is especially low in the mainland parishes, where most of
the villages were founded during the early Middle Ages at the latest, as in Halikko,
Paimio, Piikkiö, Perniö and Sauvo. One interpretation of this is that the old villages
were founded so close to each other that a large number of farms was not possible,
whereas in the new settlement areas, for instance in the archipelago, villages formed
larger areal units right from the beginning (Oja 1955: 86-87).159
Another aspect concerning the number of farms per village is that some of the
villages in the archipelago included farms with a wider subsistence base than those
on the mainland, meaning that some farms were more dependent on the sea than
on a large land area. This is apparent in the case of the largest villages: Rosala (28
farms) and Hiittinen (20) in the Dragsfjärd archipelago, Attu (13) and Lemlax (13)
in Parainen, and Högsar (14) in Nauvo (Oja 1955: 87). In any case, the importance
of the archipelago as a favourable settlement zone during the mid-16th century is

159
Furthermore the borders of younger villages seem to reflect a different planning or way
of formation. A tentative Thiessen polygon analysis of areal division in the northern part
of Finland Proper, comparing optimal borders (drawn from the location of historical
villages) with real village borders, suggests a correlation with age, as the borders of
younger villages (including villages in the archipelago) have a better fit with optimal
borders than villages in old central settlement areas of the Iron Age (Nissinaho 1997).

322
 Parish Villages Farms Farms / Farms / obvious. This is further underlined
Village km2 by the fact that the density of farms
Halikko 109 250 2,3 0,7 in the archipelago is comparable
Kemiö 132 618 4,7 0,9
to that of the mainland parishes.
Nauvo 54 186 3,5 0,8
With this in mind, one wonders
Paimio 111 233 2,1 1,0
yet again why Iron Age settlement
Parainen 103 359 3,5 1,4
is so scantily reflected in the
Perniö 114 275 2,4 0,6
archaeological material in this area
Piikkiö 68 133 2,8 1,2
– is it really due to the difference
Sauvo 135 270 2,0 1,0
in the intensity of archaeological
Uskela 91 353 3,9 0,5
research or does it reflect a differing
Fig. 115. Number and density of villages and settle­ment development?
farms according to tax records of the study The idea of a different settle­
area for 1556 as presented by Oja (1955: 86-
87). The present municipalities of Dragsfjärd, ment history on the mainland
Kemiö and Västanfjärd are all included in and in the archipelago gains
the number for Kemiö. ‘Uskela’ refers to the support from historical sources.
present municipality of Salo (which at the time The oldest documents referring to
had differing borders, including, for example,
Pertteli and Muurla). certain named villages are from the
beginning of the 14th century, but
histo­rians have shown that a division of villages according to age is possible even
where earlier periods are concerned. This has been done above all on the basis of
the mid-16th century tax-records, dividing the villages according to their payment
of tax in cereals (rye), based on the ‘Finnish law’ (Sw. finsk matskottsrätt) or in butter,
according to the ‘Swedish law’ (Sw. svensk matskottsrätt). The tax paid according
to these two different systems was the tithes in kind (Fi. ruokalisävero) paid to the
clergy. This tax was at first claimed in 1266, but there is no knowledge of how it was
paid at that time (Oja 1933: 184-185). There is, however, information on crown taxes
from the year 1337, according to which pioneer settlements paid tax according to
‘Swedish law’. This means that the year 1266 can be regarded as the earliest possible
date for settlements paying the clergy tax according to ‘Swedish law’ (cf. Tallgren
1931: 107), while the year 1337 marks the time when the system at the latest was
applied by the crown, possibly marking also the time of introduction of the butter
tax in the ecclesiastical taxation. In the 1337 case, previously uncleared land was
granted a four-year period without tax, after which tax would be paid according
to ‘Swedish law’ (Oja 1933: 184; cf. Renvall 1933: 168).160 The first half of the 14th
century actually seems to coincide with the first historical documents mentioning

160
King Magnus Eriksson had declared the four-year taxfree state just a few years earlier,
in 1334.

323
villages later known to have paid tax according to ‘Swedish law’. Old mentionings
of this kind from within the study area are, for example, documents related to the
village Kyysilä in Paimio from 1326, Siksalo in Perniö from 1329, Lemu in Perniö
from 1330 and Finnby in Piikkiö from 1331 (Oja 1933: 184; Renvall 1933: 169).
According to one interpretation, the original basis for the two systems would
have been national differences in economy – the Finnish based on slash-and-
burn cultivation and the Swedish based on proper field cultivation and cattle
breeding. This view was later abandoned. Probably the reason for the different
tax was almost the opposite – the areas of established field cultivation paid tax
in cereals and pioneer settlements in butter. The system probably originates from
the colonization stage, when payment of tax in cereals was unsuitable for settlers
moving into previously unsettled areas where field clearance was in its initial stage
(Oja 1955: 31-32). This interpretation probably does not give the whole picture, but
the fact remains that the division reflects the difference between systems used by
old established settlements in comparison with more recently founded farms. The
former group of villages has been interpreted as having been founded before the
14th century, and the latter group as indicating later settlement (Oja 1955: 29-33).
There has been some discussion of the possibility that the older tax might in fact
concern villages that were founded already before the 13th century (Orrman 1983:
283; 1996: 129), but the groups themselves have not been seriously questioned.
Although there are examples of villages belonging to the ‘Finnish law’ that were
founded after 1300, and some villages obviously shifted from one taxation system
to another (Renvall 1933: 170-171; Hiltunen 1980: 25-26; 1988: 202; Orrman 1983:
290-293), the division of villages according to which tax-system they belonged to is
still an important method for dating and understanding settlement development
in southwestern Finland.
The ecclesiastical parishes (Fi. kirkkopitäjä) within the Halikko jurisdictional
district (Fi. kihlakunta) in the 16th century were Paimio, Marttila, Halikko, Uskela,
Perniö and Kemiö; furthermore the Somero, Lohja and Kisko (Pohja) pastorates
belonged to this group of parishes (Oja 1933: 182, 196). Partly the parish borders
looked very different from the later parishes and present-day municipalities of the
area (Fig. 116). Part of the kihlakunta is somewhat outside the study area and, on
the other hand, Piikkiö and Sauvo within the study area did not belong to the
kihlakunta of Halikko but to the kihlakunta of Piikkiö. When we look at the different
taxation systems in the case of villages within the area, the difference between
the archipelago and the mainland is striking. Within the Halikko kihlakunta only
villages in the central parts of Halikko, Paimio, Perniö and Uskela were paying
tax according to ‘Finnish law’. In Kemiö the inhabitants were for the most part
immigrant Swedes, while in most mainland villages paying tax according ‘Swedish

324
 a b





















 








 











 












































 















 























 






















 



















 











 





























 









 




































































c d




























 






 






















 

 









 









 














 






 











 



 
















 










 

 


 





 




 


  






 




















 


 

 





 







 





 
















 






 





 




















  






 

 


























 











 



 











































MARTTILA

LIETO

KAARINA PIIKKIÖ PAIMIO HALIKKO

USKELA

PARAINEN
SAUVO

NAUVO
PERNIÖ

KEMIÖ

0 20 km

Fig 116. The main 16th century ecclesiastical parishes and the area of villages paying tax
according to ‘Finnish law’ within the Pikkiö kihlakunta (redrawn from Santalahti et al.
1936) and the Halikko kihlakunta (redrawn from Oja 1933: 196). In the upper part of the
map the distribution of Iron Age AD cemeteries (a), uncertain cemeteries (b), settlement
sites (c) and cup-marked stones (d) within the study area is shown in relation to the area of
villages paying tax according to ‘Finnish law´.

325
law’ the settlers were Finns. This illustrates how the ‘Swedish’ form of taxation
was applied to pioneer settlement, regardless of ethnicity. In general, most Iron
Age cemeteries, settlement sites and cup-marked stones are found within the area
of villages’ later paying tax according to ‘Finnish law’. Only a few villages on the
islands, like the northernmost villages of Kemiönsaari belonging to the Halikko
parish, paid tax according to ‘Finnish law’ (Oja 1933; Oja 1955: 36-37; Orrman 1983:
Fig. 1). Within the archipelago parishes in the kihlakunta of Piikkiö, i.e. Nauvo
and Parainen, no villages belonged to this cathegory (Santalahti et al. 1936). The
almost total lack of archipelagic villages belonging to the older taxation system
is a marked indication of the difference in settlement history and supports the
difference indicated by the Iron Age archaeological data.
The distribution of villages paying tax according to ‘Finnish law’ is divided into
two different areas – one around the Halikonlahti Bay (consisting of the villages in
Halikko, Uskela and Perniö) and another comprising the villages of Paimio, Piikkiö
and Sauvo (which is part of a larger area including other mainland parishes of the
kihlakunta of Piikkiö as well as areas further west). According to Oja (1933: 187),
the former area most probably in the beginning formed one ecclesiastical parish
(Uskela), from which the Halikko and Perniö parishes were separated in the 14th
century, at the latest. This view is not in accordance with the current idea that the
primary formation of ecclesiastical parishes took place not as a process of successive
divisions of some larger area, but as a division where a number of villages and
farms agreed to paying the ecclesiastical tax (tenth) for the upkeep of a parish
church and services (Hiekkanen 2003: 11-15; 2005: 32). In the Turku area (mostly
outside the study area) Pihlman (2004: 62-65) has suggested that the number of
villages forming the original parishes was about 50, basing the conclusion on the
number of villages paying tax according to ‘Finnish law’.
Parish Villages
In comparison, the idea of an original parish in the size
Halikko 70
of the whole eastern part of the present study area thus
Paimio 81
seems unlikely. Probably the parishes within the study
Perniö 60
area were originally formed as different entities, with a
Piikkiö 49
number of villages comparable to that of the Turku area.
Sauvo 53
Uskela 57
The number of villages, if counting the villages paying
tax according to ‘Finnish law’ is a little more variegated
Fig. 117. The number than those in the Turku area, ranging from around 50 to
of villages paying tax 80 (Fig. 117), but still in a range which could be expected
according to ‘Finnish if the idea was an even count of villages for the upkeep of
law’ within the study
each parish church.
area (Oja 1933: 203-
213; Alifrosti 1990: 80; It seems that the different ecclesiastical taxation
Pihlman 2004: 64). systems later – probably in the 15th century – came to

326
influence the borders of administrative parishes (Fi. hallintopitäjä) (Oja 1933: 194,
199-201). This is evident in the case of both the Piikkiö and the Halikko kihlakunta
where it is obvious that the areas of ‘Finnish law’ and ‘Swedish law’ were the
basis for both the borders of administrative parishes as well as taxation areas (Fi.
verokunta) within the parishes (Oja 1933: 194-195, 197; Santalahti et al. 1936). The
16th century administrative parishes within the Halikko kihlakunta were Paimio,
Marttila, Halikko, Muurla (Muurlan lääni), Perniö and Kemiö, the borders of which
are quite different when compared to the ecclesiastical parishes (Fig. 118). With
regard to Kemiö, it can be noticed that the westernmost Perniö villages paying tax
according to ‘Swedish law’ had been incorporated into the administrative parish
of Kemiö.

MARTTILA

LIETO

KAARINA PIIKKIÖ PAIMIO MUURLA

HALIKKO

PARAINEN SAUVO

NAUVO
PERNIÖ

KEMIÖ

0 20 km

Fig. 118. The main borders of the administrative parishes of the kihlakunta of
Piikkiö (redrawn from Santalahti et al. 1936) and the kihlakunta of Halikko
(redrawn from Oja 1933: 197) in the 16th century, compared with the distribution
of villages paying tax according to ‘Finnish law’. Land owned by the Church or
the nobles (not part of the administrative parishes) has not been indicated, nor
ownership of land across the parish borders.

327
 A last comment concerning villages is related to the idea of territories and the
history of settlement organization in southwestern Finland. In the sense of areal
size and number of individuals interacting, it is easy to form a hierarchy ranging
from 1) the single farm as the primary (primitive) unit to 2) the village (or hamlet)
as the second stage (comprising an organization of several farms), and ultimately
3) the territory (at some stage possibly equivalent to the pitäjä), consisting of
farms and villages – the territory obviously the final crown of organizational
development in this sequence. When the idea of early socio-political development
as suggested in this study is considered, however, the chronological order of the
units has to be changed, as there is no evidence of Early Iron Age village formation.
The three cases of several Roman Period or Migration Period cemeteries within the
boundaries of one historical village within the study area are probably examples
of contemporary farms lying close to each other, but there is nothing to suggest a
village community. If, on the other hand, the clustering of sites within microregions
in the mainland river valleys is indicative of the formation of socio-political units,
the roots of the organization of territories go far back. The territory would then be
the next primitive unit discernible after the single farm, while village formation
would represent a later stage of organization discernible during the later parts of
the Iron Age or the early Historical Period in southwestern Finland.

6.3.3. The Estonian vakus

Estonian researchers have discussed several levels of prehistoric administration

related to settlement units, like 1) the village, 2) the parish (Est. kihelkond) and 3)
the province (Est. maakond), the last of which comprising several parishes (e.g. Lang
2002b). In addition to these, some intermediate level between the village and the
parish has been considered, related to the medieval terms terra, vakus and saras
– the most important of which in recent discussion the vakus, which was a group of
villages that jointly paid taxes.
One previous line of discussion was whether the biggest or most important
Iron Age fortifications could be related to the kihelkond units known from early
historical sources. These originally non-ecclesiastical units were later transformed
into parishes, starting in the 13th century. Some of the big forts (like Valjala, Pöide
and Kaarma) are actually situated close to the kihelkond centres, while others lie
on the borders of units. This suggests that it was not the kihelkond but some other
unity – maybe just one or a few vakus units close to the fort (Moora & Ligi 1970:
64-65) or even the maakond (Tõnisson 1985: 106) – that organized the building
of the fortifications. According to Lang (2002b: 155-156; 167), the kihelkond was

328
probably initially only a geographically determined settlement area, which in the
course of time achieved functions of a political and administrative character. In the
Middle Ages, after the conquest of Estonia by the Danes and the Livonian Order,
the original kihelkond units were usually subdivided into smaller ones and made
into proper ecclesiastical parishes. The maakond, on the other hand, Lang (2002b:
156, 167-168) suggests to have been a term that had only a “human-geographical
content”, comprising one or several parishes, but without any complex political,
administrative or economical dimension.
In the recent discussion on the Estonian Late Iron Age fort-districts by Lang
(2000a: 283-285, 365-366; 2002a: 20-21; 2002b), the supposed fort-districts have been
compared with the administrative taxpaying unit vakus of the Middle Ages. Kor­ho­
nen (1923), who was the first to thoroughly study the vakus institution, regarded
the vakus, as well as the Latvian pagast, as units that had mainly originated due to
foreign – Scandinavian and Russian (Varjagian) – influences. He acknowledged the
possibility of an association with an old tradition of offerings, but he regarded it as
impossible that the vakus known from late medieval times could have been a direct
development from an ancient cult. During the period of conquest of Estonia the
vakus is not mentioned in German sources. Korhonen (1923: 225-226) supposed that
the Germans came into contact with the local political organizations maakond and
kihelkond and only later was the vakus – originally a tradition of voluntary treating –
incorporated into the government as an unit for taxation. Korhonen (1923: 204-205,
226) thus did not see the vakus units as a direct development from an old offering
feast and offering tax. According to him, the vakus was actually a less important
organization than previously thought.
The idea of the vakus as being introduced as a foreign institution was later
criticized by Moora & Ligi (1970: 68-73), who regarded the vakus as an ancient
local organization developed from the need of a common meeting to take care of
common matters – cultic or profane – within the community. The meeting was
organized in the form of a feast, the necessities of which were kept in a bushel or
wooden basket (Est. vakk; Fi. vakka), carried in one such or measured in it. This
would thus be the origin for the name of the organization and unit. Food or other
necessities brought to the feast may also have been presented to the local leaders of
the communities, who were in charge of common matters. If this was the original
function of the vakus, it seems such a universal idea that no foreign introduction of
it would have been necessary.
The Historical Period vakus consisted of several settlement units commonly
paying taxes to a landlord and offering him (and the members of the vakus) a feast.
It now seems that fort-districts and vakus units can be identified using the Danish
account-book Liber Census Daniae from the early 13th century by combining groups

329
of villages with common denominators of ploughlands. These units of villages
were, according to Lang’s theory, ancient vakus units, several of which made up
one fort-district. The vakus units are retrospectively comparable with territories
of the Roman Iron Age or even earlier times, which suggests that the power
territories of the units represent an established local institution that was taken over
by the medieval authorities as an instrument for tax collection (Lang 2002a: 20-
21). Furthermore, the identification of both vakus units and fort-districts combining
several vakus units indicates two levels of power territories comparable to feudal
relations. The theory is supported by the overlapping spatial distribution of vakus
units and villages with comparable numbers of ploughlands as well as supposed
prehistoric territories with one dominating farm within a few areas (in Harjumaa
and Rävala) in which suitable materials for a comparison have been available (Lang
2002b).
The geographical formation of the vakus units started, according to Lang (2002b:
144-145; 165), during the first colonization (landnam) of agricultural land in the
third and second millennia BC when small settlement areas, separated from each
other by larger forests, bodies of water, bogs etc., were formed; farms within these
settlement areas had close contacts and collaborated in the usage of common lands.
Later, the settlement pattern became denser and a variety of social differences began
to develop between the farms of the area. As a result, systems of one dominating
farm were formed, within which ordinary farms had some obligations and one
farm held a central position. This process can be dated to the Late Bronze Age and
Pre-Roman Iron Age in the central settlement areas, like the Rävala area, and the
Roman Iron Age in the interior areas of Estonia. According to Lang (2002b), already
within the system of one dominating farm, the institution of the vakus began to
take shape. This description of the formation of settlement areas, the collaboration
between farms within the areas, as well as the unequal socio-political status of
farms becoming institutionalised, is probably comparable to many areas. This
could well be a description applicable to the emergence of socio-political territories
also within southwestern Finland during the Iron Age.
The vakus (Fi. vakka) is present as an institution also in Finnish historical sources,
but mainly from the eastern part of the country and not from southwestern Finland
at all.161 It is not known whether this distribution reflects the original spread of the
Finnish vakka or is due to old, heathen traditions being preserved longer in the
east than in the southwest. According to Korhonen (1923: 27), this could reflect

161
The word vakka as referring to payment of fees to public officials (like cantor, minister,
bailiff, judge) is common in historical sources from all parts of Finland (Voionmaa 1912:
42-43). Although in these cases vakka is in a way a synonym for salary or tax, it is not an
institution, but refers to the way of measuring the amount of grain to be paid.

330
the original spread of the ritual. If not, the preservation of it in the east could have
been due to the more tolerant attitudes towards old customs taken by the clergy of
the Eastern Orthodox Church in comparison with priests of the Catholic Church
(Laakso 2003: 150-151). The same feast with the name of vakkove was performed
also in Inkeri, southeast of Karelia (Korhonen 1923: 11-14).
According to the information preserved, the Finnish vakka seems to have been
most of all a fertility ritual related to the growing of crops. The name is known in
the form Ukonvakka, in the meaning of both a bushel or wooden basket (originally
used for sowing of grain) and a feast. The earliest historical sources mentioning the
vakka feast are from the middle of the 16th century. In several of the narratives and
later sources preserved in Savo-Karelia as well as one from Häme, the meaning of
the Ukonvakka ritual is mentioned to have been removal of drought. The relation
of the feast with the thunder god Ukko thus seems natural, as the idea was to bring
about rain (Krohn 1910; Korhonen 1923: 9-10; Melander 1932: 38-40; Toiviainen
1938: 75-76). In the first part of the ritual cereal grains, namely barley grains, were
put outside waiting for rain so they would start malting. The second part was the
drinking of beer prepared from the malten (Korhonen 1923: 15). Information as to
some administrative content or specific areal size of the unit performing the ritual
is vague. In some accounts the vakka was performed by a single farm, but in one
case the feast was arranged by one farm for several farms together.

6.3.4. Territory, pitäjä and parish

The concept of the territory was outlined in the introduction. One way of approaching
the idea of a territory is to define it as a geographical and organizational entity, the
settlement units of which are grouped together in a (often natural-geographical)
microregion and bound together by an areal identity and some form of socio-
political superstructure. The way of formation of a territory would be increased
cooperation or interdependence between settlement units within a region, and
formalisation of rules for information exchange, leadership and obligations.
Such constellations must have formed already during prehistory in southwestern
Finland, comparable to the Estonian vakus. One indication of an early autonomous
history of social organization could be the Finnish word for parish – pitäjä – which
is not a loan, but a derivation of the old indigenous verb pitää, with the meaning of
‘keep’ (Itkonen & Joki 1976: 582-583; Salo 1999: 28; Häkkinen 2004: 934). If the idea
and concept of a territory in a size somewhat comparable to that of a parish had not
existed in Finland when ecclesiastical parishes were formed due to efforts of the
western Church, one would have expected the use of some variant of the Swedish

331
word for parish – sokn, socken. This was the word used by the Swedish authorities
as well as the Swedish-speaking immigrants in Finland, while pitäjä is the only
word for parish in the Finnish language. The pitäjä could thus be a term older than
the formation of the ecclesiastical parishes. Following this thought, if there had
existed a common name for earlier territorial organization, it would probably have
been the pitäjä. The different concepts are, however, not to be linked directly; early
territories may have been called pitäjä, but should not be directly compared to and
confused with the concept of the parish (Fi. pitäjä) of the Historical Period. Territory,
pitäjä and parish may be interrelated, but the function, organization and borders of
the unit denoted as a pitäjä may have changed through time and varied in different
contexts without being a direct predecessor for the parish.162
Aspelin (1885: 91) was the first to suggest that Finnish parishes had their roots in
prehistoric times. His idea was that the parishes had developed from Pre-Christian
offering societies. The Finnish word for parish – pitäjä – could according to Aspelin
have had its origin in a word meaning a kind of sacrificial banquet (Fi. uhripidot).
Later Voionmaa (1911) explained the early pitäjä as areal units for taxation; at first
they would have collected a pre-Christian offering tax and later the same unit
was used for other taxation as well. The idea of tax-collecting was also present in
Vilkuna’s (1964: 37-39) interpretation of the pitäjä, which he explained as a unit that

162
In recent studies the idea that Scandinavian historical parishes (Sw. sokn, socken)
descended from earlier “heathen parishes” has been abandoned (Rahmqvist 1996:
57; Carelli 2001: 239; Ros 2001: 222-223). According to the present view, parishes were
most probably formed when the ecclesiastical tax-system based on the canonical law
was developed. In a broader Nordic perspective this would have happened during the
12th and 13th centuries (Carelli 2001: 240; cf. Rahmqvist 1996: 57). The earliest history
of the parish institution in Scandinavia is probably related to the consolidation of
ecclesiastical organization in England during the 11th century. During this stage socn
was a concept meaning the territory of a lord’s authority, but it also came to represent
the congregation of that area. The same word in the form sokn is known to have had
an judicial content also in old Nordic languages, but not in the meaning of a territory.
Therefore it is – according to Brink (1991) – more probable that the word for a parish,
sokn and later socken, was introduced from England by English members of the clergy
in connection with the organization of the Nordic church, starting in the 11th century.
Within the Scandinavian countries tithes – the important requisite for organised parish
formation – were introduced during the first half of the 12th century. During the 12th
century parishes were formed in southern Scandinavia and especially during the 13th
century in the northern part (Brink 1991: 121, 138). Even if the regional division and
the structure of the parish system was mainly introduced in connection with the new
taxation, previous Scandinavian organizational units, like hundare (hundreds) and tolft
can have some resemblance on a general level when compared with the parishes (Ros
2001: 225, 238). Partly the parish system may have been correlated with or adapted to
some Pre-Christian territorial division. This is due to the fact that the oldest parishes
were bound to existing settlement areas, the division at least partly following natural
borders and the church usually being erected on an essential place within the old
settlement area (Brink 1991: 135-137).

332
provided a banquet for a native or foreign group of tax collectors. The same view
was shared by Oja (1955: 124).163
In the 1930’s Tallgren (1931: 91) discussed the formation of the borders of the
pitäjä as a process whereby the unsettled forests between inhabited areas were
utilised and soon divided "halfway" between the settled areas in the river valleys.
The actual borders of the early pitäjä, however, cannot have been strictly defined;
for example Oja (1955: 53, 119) has pointed out that certain villages owned distant
land in neighbouring parishes, indicating that at least the wilderness upstream was
formerly common land. This is in accordance with the way the territory is understood
in the present study; a territory is not primarily an unit defined by geographical
boundaries but a unit of social organization.
In his final analysis some years later, Tallgren (1933) based his view of the prehistoric
pitäjä on the occurrence of the place-names hiisi and moisio, which according to him
represented the main sacrificial site and the chieftain’s manor. He identified several
prehistoric pitäjä units, six of which are within the present study area. These are
Piikkiö, Paimio, Sauvo, Halikko, Uskela and Perniö. This is in line with the clusters
of Iron Age cemeteries and settlement sites in the area. Tallgren’s inter­pretation was
partly somewhat doubtful; he did not find the proper place-names in Sauvo and
Halikko, but based his conclusions regarding these two pitäjä units on other facts.
According to Tallgren, the early pitäjä were formed as units with a common defence
system, a common court institution, common sacrificial places and joint leaders
– elders or judges. The common defence was suggested by the occurrence of hill-
forts, the fortifying and defending of which would have required people from many
households. Hill-forts as an obvious proof of organised cooperation is an idea which
has been repeated by several archaeologists (e.g. af Häll­ström 1948: 81-82; Kivikoski
1961: 251), but later also strongly criticized (Taavitsainen 1990).
Tallgren’s idea was later taken up by Salo in several cases, one of which the
prehistoric pitäjä units in the Aura river valley (Salo 1995a: 31-36). Here, Salo has
interpreted the place-name Moisio differently, suggesting that the moisio in the Aura
river valley was a common field, the yield of which could have been used for some
common purpose such as a (sacrificial) banquet, or the upkeep of the Vanhalinna
hill-fort situated in the same river valley. Salo has also tried to date the process

163
The idea of the pitäjä originally being an offering society has been criticized by Salo
(2004b: 309-310), who based his criticism on the fact that there is little proof in, for
example, etymological data of the importance of common rituals involving some leader
of the cult. On the other hand, he does not question the idea of a joint cult as he regards
the hiisi (a cult place) as one basic ingredient of the pitäjä. Salo has also rejected the idea
of the pitäjä being connected with, or organized by, some foreign force or conquer, as
no terminology related to this is present in the Finnish language relevant to the time of
the birth of the pitäjä. Instead, he has regarded settlement development as the starting
point for the formation of the pitäjä, which is in accordance with how the formation of
territories has been understood in this study.

333
of formation of the pitäjä. In the province of Satakunta single farms and villages
started to join into pitäjä units during the Merovingian Period at the latest (Salo &
Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 83; cf. Salo 2004b). The formation is explained as starting with
co-operation that through time became more formal. There would have existed a
need for co-operation in connection with the establishing and protection of outland
areas, in the utilisation of common pastures and hunting areas, as for defence and
the maintenance of peace within the community. The importance of negotiations in
the form of a joint meeting – käräjät – (the court) is especially stressed by Salo (e.g.
2004a: 303-308; 2004b; cf. Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 83). The pitäjä would have
been the institution keeping (Fi. pitää) the käräjät and, in at least some cases, also
fortifying and supplying a hill-fort.
The idea of pitäjä formation is presented also in the case of the Kalanti-Laitila
area in the northern part of Finland Proper (Salo 2003). In this area, the Early
Roman Iron Age cemeteries have been interpreted as reflecting a migration from
Scandinavia – the newcomers would, however, have been predominantly men
involved in the fur trade and taxation of the Finns.164 In the Merovingian Period, at
the latest, the descendants of the originally Swedish-speaking community would
have changed into a culturally Finnish one.165 During this period several new

164
This is the same migration model used by Salo for explaining western phenomena of
the southwestern Finnish Bronze Age.
165
Salo (2003; cf. 2000a: 105-108) has interpreted much onomastic material as well as
historical sources in order to underline the special contacts between the Kalanti-Laitila
area and Scandinavia. Much of this discussion is beyond archaeology. The archaeological
evidence consists mainly of cemeteries (representing several forms) and the objects
found in them. Furthermore some upright stones – bauta-stones, according to Salo –
found in Untamala in Laitila and fossil field remains at a site in Laitila, together with a
general tradition of building stone fences have been suggested by Salo as representing
Scandinavian influence. None of these is convincing. The cemeteries are representative
of the same trend that can be seen in the whole of southwestern Finland in the Roman
Period, i.e. large variation of grave rituals indicating overseas contacts but also related
to a period of change at the level of local societies promoting the expression of wealth
and power in various ways. It is typical for these cemeteries that objects deposited may
have their origin in different areas around the Baltic Sea – contexts where both the type
of cemetery and objects deposited in it would have a single area of origin are sparse.
As explained in previous chapters, the ornaments found in these cemeteries (including
those of the Kalanti-Laitila area) are mostly East Baltic forms rather than Scandinavian,
while some weapons and luxury objects probably entered Finland through Scandinavia.
Regarding the “bauta-stones” (which Salo compares with 11th century memorial stones)
there is not much to be said – a few upright stones of unknown function cannot inform
on ethnicity. The same can be said regarding the fossil fields with stone borders (actually
one single site) and the stone fences (most of them built in the Historical Period) found
in the area. There may be many reasons why similar fields have not been preserved or
found elsewhere in Finland. The stone fences on the other hand (which can be found
here and there in other parts of Finland as well), can be explained by the stony ground
of the area, promoting the use of clearance stones for fences.

334
cemeteries were founded and many objects – especially weapons – were deposited.
According to Salo (2003: 69), this was a period of settlement growth, increase of
wealth and the strengthening of the Finnish culture, which probably also promoted
larger organization than on the village level. Whereas the village cooperation was
based on kinship and the utilisation of common land without any institutionalised
organization, the cooperation and need for consultation between villages required
another form of organization – the ancient pitäjä (Fi. muinaispitäjä) (Salo 2003: 70-
71). This line of development differs from what has been suggested in this study,
where the earliest territorial organization is supposed to have been based on the
formalised relationships between single farms, not villages. Thus, the pitäjä could be
far older than village formation, which would have happened in the Late Iron Age
or the Middle Ages. Otherwise, the general reasons for the formation of territories
presented by Salo (e.g. 2003: 70-71; 2004b: 310) seem plausible. According to him,
the need for higher-level decision-making would have occurred when defending
common interests regarding faraway utilisation areas and also for matters of
general defence of the settlement area – most of all the pitäjä institution would,
however, have been a means of preserving peace within society. This required a
court-institution (Fi. käräjät). According to Salo, käräjät originally meant simply
a meeting. This meeting was the origin also for the name of the ancient pitäjä,
related to the werb pitää – “keep” – as the käräjät meeting was according to Salo
“kept” (organised) by the pitäjä. Salo (2003: 71) furthermore repeats the idea by
Tallgren (1933) according to which an ancient pitäjä also would have had a hill-fort,
a common cult place (hiisi) and a kind of chief’s manor (moisio).166
The several pitäjä units discussed by Salo in the area of Kalanti (Uusikirkko)
and Laitila – forming one ecclesiastical parish each in the Middle Ages – are rather
confusing. Along with the ancient pitäjä he discusses early ecclesiastical parishes,
basing the discussion on small village churches found in the region. Thus, for
example, Laitila would have consisted of three early parishes each with its own
small church in the later half of the 11th century or around 1100 AD; those parishes

166
The question of manors is taken up by Salo regarding a few sites. The suggested
formation of extensive farms or manors (Fi. suurtalo, pitäjänkartano) around 1000 AD
(Salo 2000b; Salo & Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 95; Salo 2003: 71) seems to be based most of
all on some rich cemeteries from this period. The cases mentioned are Saari in Köyliö,
Moisio in Nousiainen and Rikala in Halikko. The importance of the moisio sites has
been emphasized also by Georg Haggrén (2005a). According to him, the moisio can be
interpreted as a leading farm or manor. These farms acted as innovators in the process of
christianisation in the 12th and 13th centuries. The erection of the parish church and the
organization of its upkeep were instigated by the farm or manor, and the first churches
– probably private chapels at first – were built on the land owned by these estates.
Haggrén’s (2005a) view thus emphasizes the close connection between the prehistoric
moisio, Historical Period manors, and the parish churches.

335
would in some way relate to the older division of pitäjä units (Salo 2003: 80-82).
Kalanti on the other hand would have had only one early medieval parish (Kodiala),
the pitäjä status of which is, according to Salo (2003: 84) uncertain as no käräjä place
or hill-fort is located within this area. The idea of early parish churches presented
by Salo (2003) is not convincing. It has been assumed that in the early stages of
Christianity some leading families may have built small chapels or churches of
their own (Hiekkanen 2004a; cf. Uotila 2003: 367; Haggrén 2005a), but this does not
imply that these chapels had a direct relationship with the pitäjä organization, nor
the formation of ecclesiastical parishes. In the case of the supposed early chapels
or churches in the Kalanti-Laitila, there is, furthermore, no evidence of an early
date – the chapels may have a later dating than the formation of the Uusikirkko
(Kalanti) and Laitila parishes (cf. Hiekkanen 2004a).167
The fact pointed out by Oja (1955: 125) that land-ownership occurred across the
borders of medieval parishes is important within the study area. Common pastures
(Fi. niittyjakokunta) especially were divided in an interesting way, as villages
in Piikkiö, Paimio and Sauvo shared some common pastures, as did villages in
Halikko and Uskela. According to Oja (1955: 125-126), this might indicate that there
were originally only three prehistoric pitäjä units within the study area, i.e. Paimio
(including Piikkiö and Sauvo), Halikko (including Uskela) and Perniö. The final
division of the large prehistoric pitäjä units, according to Oja, must have taken place
by the end of the 13th century. During that period the new ecclesiastical parishes
Kemiö, Parainen and Nauvo were also founded in the archipelago. These medieval
ecclesiastical units are first mentioned in historical sources in the 14th century:
Halikko 1313, Kemiö and Paimio 1325, Parainen and Uskela 1329, Perniö 1330,
Sauvo 1335, Piikkiö 1377 and Nauvo 1395 (Oja 1955: 128-129). The idea of a closer
relationship between Piikkiö, Paimio and Sauvo compared to the other Iron Age
microregions also gains some support from the archaeological material. As shown
in Chapter 3, one common denominator for these three regions seem to be the
slightly earlier occurrence of a grave ritual involving grave goods already during
the late Pre-Roman or Early Roman Iron Age. In addition, there is a partly different
material culture during the earlier part of the Iron Age in comparison to the rest
of the study area, as noted by Hirviluoto (1991: 138-139). This, however, does not
necessarily suggest any large pitäjä unit – rather a common settlement history and

167
In another context Salo’s (2000a) idea of parish formation as early as the 11th century has
been regarded as particularly problematic by Orrman (2001). According to him, this
would be unexpected as it would be as early as in Denmark and earlier than in most
parts of Sweden. Furthermore, Orrman points out that tithing (commonly regarded as
the prerequisite for parish formation) could not have been introduced in the diocese
of Turku earlier than in the 12th century. According to Hiekkanen (2004b), this would
actually have happened in the early 13th century.

336
development of the areas. The site pattern prevailing throughout the Iron Age gives
reason to assume that it was between the households in the microregions of the
river valleys that a need for organised cooperation and decision-making was most
obvious. This does not exclude cooperation and regulated relations also between
microregions. It is, however, more likely that it was the organizational unit of the
natural geographically determined microregion – not a group of microregions –
that was identified as a territory and possibly referred to as a pitäjä.
The idea of organizational units larger than a pitäjä has also been discussed.
Ella Kivikoski (1939: 252-254), one of the leading Iron Age archaeologist in the
mid 20th century, interpreted the Late Iron Age material culture in the different
river valleys in southwestern Finland as similar and as a reflection of co-operation
and socio-political unity on a provincial level. More lately Salo has continued the
discussion on provincial level units, i.e. the unit of cooperation between several
pitäjä. Salo (2003) for example reaches the conclusion that the Kalanti-Laitila area
would have formed a province (Fi. maakunta) of its own in the 11th century. Salo has
also suggested that the formation of the province Satakunta as well as the province
Häme could date back to the 11th century (Salo 2000a: 105-185; 2005b: 52; Salo &
Söyrinki-Harmo 2001: 86). Orrman (2001; cf. Taavitsainen 2000: 25-27) has criticized
this view of the level of organization as maximalistic, as no proof of co-operation
on the level of a province during the Late Iron Age exists; the upkeep of hill-forts,
for example, has not required a particulary complex organization, there is no proof
of the functionality of the assumed fire-signal system etc. Likewise the existence
of a Swedish hundare-organization in Finland (cf. Salo 2000a: 105-128; 2004b: 336-
342) has been questioned. Furthermore, Salo’s (2003) discussion has been criticized
for ignoring differing opinions (Immonen 2004: 58). These few examples show
that the discussion on the province as a prehistoric unit of organization is rather
difficult – ascertaining, for example, leadership and forms of government seems
impossible as the archaeological material does not contain features indicating large
scale supremacy, nor is there any historical evidence of such organizations from
the time of the establishment of medieval Swedish authority within present-day
Finland. The most reasonable conclusion is that there did not exist any established
provincial organization and administration during the Iron Age in Finland
(Taavitsainen 2000: 25-27; cf. Ylikangas 2007: 11-15). At least the idea of a provincial
unit is far more speculative than the idea of a microregion territory. The Finnish
historical provinces (Fi. maakunta) could originally have been etnogeographical
concepts (without a unifying administrative content), as suggested by Lang (2002b)
concerning the Estonian maakond units.
As stated above, the idea of a territory or pitäjä, as applied here, should not
be directly correlated with the ecclesiastical parishes known from historical

337
sources. On the contrary, it is likely, that the territorial organization had a minor
role during the first establishment of churches as well as the later consolidation
of the ecclesiastical organization. Rather, the first churches were erected by single
farms or villages, chiefs, merchants etc. like in many parts of northern Europe,
where private churches were in fact owned by the landowners (Carelli 2001: 239;
cf. Litzen 1977; Taavitsainen 1987: 98-99; 1989: 85-86; Hiekkanen 2007: 14-16).
This does not mean that some form of a territorial institution did not exist at the
time of the conversion process, but Christianity was apparently first adopted by
individuals and groups of people within the territory, not by the territory or pitäjä
itself. In addition to religious faith, people may have accepted Christianity due to
profane reasons too. The early Church as a potential source of power, enabling
the establishment and maintenance of contacts, was probably involved in the
competition for status both between and within regions. The final establishment,
organization and consolidation of the ecclesiastical parishes was another line of
development, which took place later.168
If an early socio-political organization on a level of a territory existed as
suggested, it is difficult to understand how strict or formal such an organization
could have been during the Iron Age. One idea is that the prehistoric pitäjä units (if
they even existed) were not strictly organised administrative units at all, but were
based above all on common aims and spontaneous cooperation (Jutikkala 1972: 7-
9; Litzen 1977: 330-331; Taavitsainen 2000). Among others, Taavitsainen (1990: 148)
has rejected the idea of an institutionalized organization of territories as well as a

168
Hiekkanen (2000; 2004b) has divided the process of early ecclesiastical organization in
Finland into three stages. The first stage (ca. 1025-1150) was a period of infiltration of
Christian customs and (during the sub-period ca. 1100-1150) an increased systematic
missionary activity. There were presumably numerous private churches built by wealthy
farmsteads or groups of farmsteads in Finland Proper already during this period. During
the second stage (ca. 1150-1200) the activities became more organized and a missionary
diocese was formed in Nousiainen, but no ecclesiastical territorial organization had
yet been introduced. This followed in the third stage when a territorial parish system
was established and the paying of an ecclesiastical tax become regulated. At the same
time the missionary diocese of Finland was moved from Nousiainen to the bank of the
River Aura, close to Turku. According to Hiekkanen (2000; 2004b) the earliest parish
organization emerged in the 1220’s and 1230’s – the moving of the centre of the diocese
probably also happened around 1230. The establishment of parishes meant that the old
farmstead cemeteries and churches were abandoned. When parishes were formed the
population was divided into groups, following a system based on earlier experience of
the church as well as of the carrying capacity of the farms (e.g. Hiekkanen 2004b: 163).
The fact that detailed planning (on a level other than the local community) lay behind
the parishes is revealed also by the fact that churches seem to have been built on sites
separate from old burial grounds. According to Hiekkanen, it can be claimed that the
tithe system laid down in canonical law was the (economical) basis for the formation
of parishes: “the tithe system led to the emergence of the parish system” (Hiekkanen
2004b: 164).

338
correspondence between the early medieval ecclesiastical and secular parishes and
the pitäjä units of late prehistoric times. According to him, there was most probably
no permanent early pitäjä organization. Instead co-operation for various ventures
was arranged in the form of temporary organizations. A variety of such a form of
cooperation is known from ethnographic contexts, especially concerning hunting,
net fishing and burn-clearance (Taavitsainen 1990: 162). These tasks were carried
out by groups of men who elected a leader, called kuningas (king). The working
association and the role of the kuningas lasted only for a set period of time. This is in
agreement with Meinander’s (1980: 12-13) suggestion that the Finnish Late Iron Age
society was egalitarian. The spontaneous character of cooperation can, according to
Taavitsainen (1999b: 145-146), be exemplified also with regard to activities of war:
strategies and tactics were probably not in the foreground, rather men fighting
instinctively as individuals and “amateurs”, improvising according to resources.
Other forms of co-operation probably existed between farms and increased due
to village formation. According to Taavitsainen (1990: 154), this was, however,
specifically spontaneous behaviour rising from the local community. A further
point underlining the accidental and temporary character of early cooperation is
that there is no evidence of an earlier fixed system of government in the sources on
early ecclesiastical and state organization (Taavitsainen 1990: 154).
Hiekkanen (2005; cf. 2003: 11-15; 2004b) has also held a similar view, rejecting
the existence of a regional organization prior to the establishment of ecclesiastical
parishes. According to him, the foundation of about 40 parishes in southwestern
Finland took place in the early 13th century on the initiative of local leaders of the
Catholic Church and with the approval of the peasants; due to this development
the former egalitarian organization of Iron Age farms would have changed into a
hierarchical system, one component being taxation. This is a view very different
from one acknowledging prehistoric hierarchical structures. With regard to the
proposed system of territorial organization of the Iron Age, it is probably true that
the administrative apparatus and functions of the early territories were primitive,
but cooperation can hardly have been purely spontaneous. The roles of leadership
and relative importance of families, farms or alliances may have changed, as
suggested by the differences and discontinuities of single cemeteries as well as
differences between regions – but this does not mean that the apparatus and idea
of the territory would have been spontaneously changeable. What may have been
in a constant state of negotiation and change were roles within the microregion and
the relative supremacy of the microregion in relation to others – not the existence
of a microregional identity and unity. In a later part of this study this question will
be approached with a look at general ideas of social complexity, suggesting that
power relationships were present in the process of formation of territories.

339
 The development of territories, as defined above, is hard to date. Archaeologically,
however, social structure may be reflected in the outcome of social actions and
in the use of symbols related to ideology. If the forming of territories is traced in
the long-term continuity of the clustered pattern of Iron Age cemeteries within
the study area, it is possible to discuss the dawn of the formation of territories as
early as in the Early Iron Age. What is important to realise in this case is that a
clustered pattern of certain types of antiquities apparently did not evolve only as
a marked increase in archaeological material in some areas, but as a an increasing
difference or even decline of material in others. This underlines the importance of
the Kemiönsaari material. What is suggested is that the formation of a new socio-
political structure in some microregions may have led to regression or other status-
related changes in others.

6.3.5. To stay or to move?

In the most recent study on the Iron Age of the archipelago (Tuovinen 2002a), the
possibility of settlement dislocation has been rejected. The most convincing argument
for a continuous settlement development is the most general one, i.e. abandonment
seen as an exceptional development, which would require a convincing explanation
other than just lack of (or incomplete knowledge of) archaeological sites. As detailed
above, it has also become clear that the Kemiönsaari area had prerequisites for Iron
Age settlement nearly as good as the mainland. There are a few stray finds and sites
with Iron Age dates, as well as palynological evidence of sporadic cultivation. All
this indicates presence in the area, but it is still unclear what kind of settlement this
was, and what was the settlement density compared to that of the mainland. When
some microregions on the mainland developed into areas where new forms of sites
clustered, Kemiönsaari, lacking these types of sites, seems to lose something of its
role as an equal to the mainland. This probably meant a change in the relationship
between the Kemiönsaari inhabitants and those of the central settlement areas on
the mainland. It could also have meant something in terms of relative population
numbers. Population growth may have been faster in the mainland areas, or the
clustering of sites could mean aggregation also in terms of settlement relocation. If
so, the process of abandonment should also be discussed as a possible element in
the development.
Abandonment is defined archaeologically as the absence of evidence for
habitation in a locus of previous habitation. Abandonment behaviour can be a
brief, single event or an episode in a trend or process, often difficult to discern in
the archaeological record (Fish et al. 1994: 136). Abandonment causation is also

340
difficult to evaluate. This is partly a question of scale; cultural and ecological
factors relevant to abandonment on a small scale may be different in kind and
frequency from factors causing abandonment phenomena on a larger scale. For
example, crop failure or disease might be the reason for the abandonment of a
site for a short period, while these would probably not affect settlement in a long-
term perspective. From an individual point of view, however, the situation may
have been felt differently; suddenly arising abnormal conditions are a greater
menace to human existence than long-time trends with the possibility of gradual
adaptation (Callmer 1986: 203). Abandonment can also be regarded as a solution
to problems. The perceived outcome of abandonment must have been considered
more acceptable, under given circumstances, than remaining in the same location;
this means that conditions in the area of destination as well as the area being
abandoned would have affected the timing and manner of departure (Fish et al.
1994: 135). The process of abandonment can be fully understood only if we address
the points both of departure and destination.
In previous parts of this study the areal (chorological) discontinuity of
settlement on Kemiönsaari after the Pre-Roman Iron Age has been suggested by
the almost total absence of later archaeological material. The discussion, based on
environmental factors and ideas of the general development of subsistence etc.,
has not shown any apparent reason for settlement dislocation. Either settlement
prevailed, although archaeologically invisible, or we have to consider some form of
abandonment. The difficulty is to understand what could have been the problem,
which could have been solved by abandoning not only individual sites but a whole
region previously settled for thousands of years? If the point of destination was
in the central settlement areas forming in the mainland river valleys, both the
initial problem and the outcome of abandonment might actually have been the
same – the increasing power, wealth and security of some settlement areas and the
decreasing power, relative wealth and security of others. For those who stayed, the
archipelago provided a good economic niche with a stable subsistence, but at the
same time the social position and security of the archipelago inhabitants must have
been dependent on the attitudes of the mainland settlement areas. Abandonment
could thus have been a consciously preferred choice, not in the sense that it was
necessary from the point of view of the daily needs of an individual, but because
of considerations of a more intricate whole, which also included benefits. One of
these would have been higher security, which refers both to protection in case of
aggression and lower subsistence risks due to buffering mechanisms. Furthermore,
the relatively low original settlement density must have meant that abandonment
and settlement clustering did not necessarily pose problems with regard to access to
means of production, such as land and water. Also social roles and interaction with

341
other inhabitants were probably flexible due to earlier contacts and kinship ties.
Related persons abandoning a site and arriving at a new one in small numbers could
probably easily be assimilated into the existing settlement area and organization.
If earlier permanent settlement sites were abandoned, this did not necessarily
mean abandonment of economic activities connected with the sites or the region
of the sites. On the contrary, established land-use rights and well-known resources
still could have played a role in the economic activities administered from the new
settlement areas. It can be imagined that besides a sense of ownership of earlier
utilised territories, the idea of ancestral land and monuments was also of importance.
All of this – considerations of security, risks, social roles, interaction – must have
been vital also for people continuing to utilize Kemiönsaari and the rest of the
archipelago. Also these people most probably had ancient contacts and kinship ties
with people living on the mainland. These contacts prevented the emergence of an
isolated archipelago population – previous bonds and constant interaction gave
the opportunity of receiving benefits from the mainland settlements, but at the
same time bound the outlying areas to the central settlement areas.
One often discussed reason for the relocation of settlement is related to the
impact of early agriculture. In Lang’s (1998) three-stage model, presented in
the previous chapter, one sub-stage was that of gradual relocation of primitive
agriculturalists to new areas, followed by the stage of primary extensive land-use
in these new areas. The latter stage was, according to Lang (1998: 97; 1999d: 367-
368), reached in southwestern Finland during the second and first millennium BC.
As explored in chapter 4, the vicinity of the settlement sites of the Pre-Roman Iron
Age on Kemiönsaari island seems to reflect new requirements due to the practice
of agriculture, i.e. something like the relocation stage in Lang’s model. If there was a
later process of dislocation – from one already utilised and suitable environment to
another – it was exceptional and cannot be explained as related to the demands of
agriculture only. There may, however, be a causative relationship, as an increased
interest in agriculture probably made the economy more vulnerable and thus
promoted the development of organised cooperation between households with the
aim of reducing risks.

342
6.4. Centrality and hierarchy

6.4.1. Settlement hierarchy in Estonia – a review

Contrary to the recent archaeological discourse in Finland, themes related to

centrality and periphery as well as the question of social power have been
addressed, especially in Estonia. One example is Lang’s (2000a; cf. 2003) book
Keskusest ääremaaks (From Centre to Periphery). In addition to centre and periphery,
Lang uses the terms ‘core area’, ‘nuclear area’ and ‘margin’. On the local level,
in the area of northern Estonia, Lang (2000a: 29-30, 319; 2003: 126) distinguishes
three main types of core areas and centres: 1) settlement cores, 2) centres of social,
economic and political power, and 3) religious centres. The settlement cores are
distinguished from surrounding marginal areas by a remarkably denser settlement
pattern, visible in the form of the distribution of antiquities – the main type being
monumental stone graves. The areas with a large number of stone graves can be
regarded as areas where the settlement density was high and the competition for
agricultural land strong. The centres of power are indicated by the existence of a
fortification and/or a rich and manifold find material (both in graves and settlement
sites), indicative of better possibilities of obtaining products of handicraft and trade,
as well as (concerning the graves) higher social pretensions. Religious centres, on
the other hand, are indicated by the existence of cultic buildings and sacred places,
cup-marked stones etc. It seems obvious, that the ‘core areas’ (in some respects also
the centres of power and religion) could be compared with the central settlement
areas discussed in this study.
The discussion on centres in Estonia has been closely connected with the
notion of power, the key concepts being ‘settlement hierarchy’ and ‘power centre’.
Settlement hierarchy refers to a settlement pattern in which qualitative differences
– mostly in function and status – exist between settlement units, whereas a power
centre is a settlement unit that can be regarded as dominating the other settlement
units of a certain area because of its location, function or find material (Lang 2002a).
Settlement hierarchy should not be mixed with normal settlement variation due, for
example, to the size of the settlement units. The hierarchy Lang (2002a: 18) refers to
means identifying the existence of real subordination like fortified settlements, hill-
forts or landed estates; the analysis of settlement hierarchy must proceed from the
study of power relations, as it is “the existence of power that separates a superior
from an ordinary man, and a landed estate or a fort from an ordinary village”. Lang
(2002a: 18-19) also makes some statements about how power could become visible.
According to him, occasional or limited power could not leave traces in the cultural
landscape. Furthermore, he is of the opinion that qualitative differences between

343
settlement units could not have arisen until power became “in one way or another
and to a greater or lesser extent inheritable”. The inheritability of power he regards
as mutually connected and correlated with private ownership of land. One of the
problems is that a power centre can be seemingly indistinguishable from ordinary
settlement units. In many cases interpretations are based on graves and grave goods
that are thought to reflect the existence of social difference between individuals,
families or farms. It is, however, important to realize that all interpretations
regarding power and hierarchies of ancient settlement are dependent on the
particular context – objective criteria do not exist (Lang 2002a: 19).
The area over which power centres dominate can be called ‘power territories’
(Lang 2002a: 20). A central place or power centre is not necessarily represented by
a single spot, but can also be thought of as a settlement cluster (cf. Fabech 1999:
457). Such an area – a ‘settlement core’ according to Lang’s (2000a: 29-30, 319; 2002a:
21) terminology – with a denser and richer settlement may also have served as a
centre. Socio-political power in such a centre may, however, have been more loosely
structured. Settlement cores were surrounded by ‘hinterlands’, i.e. zones of more
sparse habitation, distinguishable if the core and the hinterland were mutually (but
asymmetrically) dependent on each other (Lang 2002a: 21; cf. Sherratt 1993). Using
Langs’s terminology, the Iron Age archipelago of the present study area might
be identified as a ‘hinterland’ for the settlement cores (and power centres) of the
mainland.
The establishment and development of settlement hierarchy and power centres
in Estonia has been summarized by Lang (2002a: 22-25) as follows (in short): 1)
Within the hunter-gatherer societies of the Stone Ages the social differentiation
was low and the concentration of power modest. Settlement cores could serve as
receivers and mediators of innovations. 2) In the Late Neolithic and Early Bronze
Age (the second millennium BC) people left old settlement cores and settled in areas
suitable for primitive agriculture. 3) In the Late Bronze Age fortified settlements
were founded where concentration of social power reached quite a high level. These
centres emerged along transport routes as the settlement hierarchy depended on
the trading and casting of bronze. 4) At the end of the Bronze Age and the Early
Iron Age relatively small and compact power territories were formed. One farm
held social and economic power over the other farms in such a territory; probably
some part of the production was brought to this dominating farm. These territories
are comparable by location with the vakus units of later times. 5) In the Middle Iron
Age small territories began to be united, maybe already then into fort-districts.
The typical centre was a combination of hill-fort and an open settlement at its foot.
6) In the 11th century the majority of fort-settlements were abandoned or rebuilt
while new forts emerged. The fort-district – consisting of a group of vakus units

344
around the fort – now became the main power territory. 7) As the result of foreign
conquest, the fort-districts disappeared, but the vakus units – adopted by the new
landlords – remained in use as primary power territories and taxation units.

6.4.2. Territories and polities

In the context of the study area such an early and consistent development as
summarized in the case of Estonia cannot be described, although some similarities
may be discernible. The first indications of settlement relocation towards areas
suitable for agriculture can be dated to the Late Bronze Age or the Early Iron Age.
This is also the first period when there is evidence of the use of hill-sites within the
mainland part of the study area. Reliably dated sites are found in Piikkiö, Sauvo
and Halikko, i.e. from several of the areas referred to as central settlement areas
due to the distribution of sites from the later periods of the Iron Age. It is also quite
possible that some other henged hill-sites may actually date from the same period.
This is suggested by sites like Rekottila in Paimio, where there is a much closer
spatial relationship between cairns and the henged mountain than with Iron Age
sites.
Luoto (1984: 166-168) has emphasized the connection between the occurrence
of hilltop settlements in the Late Bronze Age and the increase in the importance
of domesticated animals, bronze trade as well as bronze casting. He has explained
the supposed decrease of hill-forts during the Pre-Roman Iron Age as possibly
related to settlement dispersion due to the increase of cereal cultivation instead
of cattle breeding. Iron tools may have made more efficient clearance and farming
techniques possible and, thirdly, the new metal may have lowered the importance
of the bronze trade and the bronze casting centres. The idea of early hill-sites as
centres has thus been present, but probably the low number of Finnish hill-sites
previously dated to the Early Metal Period has prevented interpretations as to their
role in settlement history and socio-political organization on a regional level. This
is more accentuated in Sweden, where the development and use of hill-sites has
been explained with reference to political geography, suggesting the material as a
possibility of identifying social organization and different socio-political groups.
The “political geography” is shaped by conflicts between different socio-political
groups as well as conflicts and dynamics within these groups (Olausson 1995: 170,
240). Lang (2000a: 281-282, cf. 365), discussing the hill-forts of northern Estonia, has
also quite clearly interpreted them as reflecting the development of socio-political
relations in society – one factor being the emergence of an elite, growing power
ambitions and territorial demands. Lang has gone even further, using this scheme

345
the other way around, stating that the absence of a fort can be interpreted as the
weakness of socio-political ambitions for power of the local elite.169
The role of the early hill-sites within the study area could have been related to
emerging new socio-political relations, but it is not at all certain that these sites
should be regarded as fortifications. One would rather like to think of these sites
as points of contact or places of symbolic function, comparable to how Wall (2003)
has tried to understand the meaning of the Early Iron Age henged mountains in
relation to settlement development. According to her, settlement was still in the
Early Iron Age rather mobile and henged mountains acted as points of contact in
relation to a mobile pattern of settlement. The inception of a permanent settlement
structure changed the social significance of the henged mountains. Ancestors were
more than before manifested through the farm and the cleared land as well as
the cemeteries close by. The focus was more than before on territoriality dividing
the landscape, and the settlement itself – the farm – became the social as well as
cosmological point of focus in the landscape. The henged mountains thus lost their
significance as mythical and liminal places. Thinking in these terms, the hill-sites
are not necessarily power centres, but they accentuate places in the landscape
probably recognized and experienced on some level of identity and unity of the
people living in the area. The appearance of such places only within the mainland
part of the study area may be indicative of a divergence between mainland and
archipelago areas, characterized on the mainland by the emergence of more formal
and centralized features of social or ritual communication.
The system of one dominating farm proposed to have emerged in the Late Bronze
Age or Early Iron Age in Estonia has not been possible to ascertain as such within
the study area. It cannot be ruled out that during several periods of the Iron Age,
a single farm would have had a dominating role within a territory, but as a stable
system this is not possible to evidence in the current state of research.170 Rather

169
In Finland mainly the Late Iron Age or early Historical Period use of hill-sites has
been interpreted with reference to power and political events, the role of the hill-forts,
however, not seen as especially active. According to Luoto (1984: 165-166), the fact that
no traces of battles have been revealed at the Finnish hill-forts indicate the low level
of political coalition; cooperation in defence has obviously existed, but as the hill-forts
have not played as a big role as in the East-Baltic area, this cooperation has evidently
been to a great deal temporary. The latest period of use of hill-forts was according
to Luoto (1984: 170) one feature in the process of collapse of Iron Age society. This
period coincides with the state formation in the Baltic Sea area as well as the period of
conversion to Christianity promoted by both the eastern and the western church. This
period of use of hill-forts is thus best explained with reference to political events of the
time (Taavitsainen 1990: 145-146).
170
The original identification of this system in the Räväla area in Estonia (Lang 1996), was
probably much dependent on the suitable material, i.e. an area where (in addition to
surveys) lots of excavations had been undertaken.

346
the material could indicate several single farms forming a unity – the territory –
primarily based on cooperation, but still competing for relative power and status
within the territory as well as in relation to leading farms in external territories.
The idea that the power of the territory was channelled through the leadership
held by one farm at a time is one possibility, but other forms of leadership could be
considered as well. The idea of single dominating farms could rather be compared
with the idea presented by Pihlman (2004), according to which Iron Age cemeteries
represent old established farms with a status higher than other farms attached
to the same economical unit. The territory, however, must have been based on
cooperation between several such units, the relative power and roles of the main
farms being negotiated separately. The power relations within the territory and the
organization of cooperation thus may have been unstable and changeable, but the
very existence of such a level of organization is likely – there must have been rules
and roles for the coexistence with the neighbours within the microregion, others
than those related to external contacts.
According to what has been outlined above, the cooperating farms within a
microregion – the territory – would represent the highest form of socio-political unit
discernible during the Iron Age. The relationships between different territories, on
the other hand, could be discussed applying the old aspect of peer polity interaction.
The concept refers to interaction between autonomous social and political units
within a single geographical region sharing a common culture. Polities often refer
to highly stratified societies, but it has been pointed out that such individual,
politically autonomous units can usually be distinguished also among supposedly
egalitarian agricultural societies (Renfrew 1986: 2; cf. Cherry & Renfrew 1986: 151).
The polity is the highest order of a socio-political unit in the region in question. In
agricultural societies it may be the village or some other aggregation of basic units
(Renfrew 1986: 2). Units of the highest order do not need to display any notably
developed or differentiated system of government or administration. There must,
however, exist effective procedures for decision-making, and a unit like this cannot
be subject to the jurisdiction of any other unit of higher rank or power (Renfrew
1986: 4). This is a definition that might well fit the units of social organization
whose existence has been suggested above. The reason why this is interesting is
that interaction between coexisting socio-political units with a similar structure
could have been a factor as important as external influences in the shaping of Iron
Age culture and society in southwestern Finland.
Peer polity interaction stresses the importance of cultural and societal change
that can be understood without the dominance of any outer force, such as for
instance influences from an area with a more advanced socio-political or economic
structure. Instead, transformations can be seen as the result of interaction among

347
equal socio-political units, in forms ranging from competition and warfare to
the spread of symbolic ideas and innovations as well as the exchange of goods
(Renfrew 1986: 8; cf. Cherry & Renfrew 1986: 152). One interesting concept is that
of ‘competitive emulation’, meaning that neighbouring polities may be spurred to
ever-greater displays of wealth and power to achieve higher inter-polity status.
It is indubitable that the units reflected in the archaeological material within the
study area (single farms and microregional settlement clusters) must have been
aware of one another – probably also competing with each other. Competition,
however, does not exclude partnership; on the contrary, in addition to kinship ties,
the status and power of the farms and settlement areas must have been crucial in
negotiations related to alliances.171 For example, wealth in the form of imported
objects came mainly from outside the study area, but were used symbolically in
cemeteries, not due to external influences or in relation to a periphery, but in the
competition between equal units of organization within the area. Displayed wealth,
power and status co-acting with the possibility of providing security as well as
other real and symbolic profits for the population maintained the credibility of the
organization. If such a scenario is acceptable, the dynamics of development within
the study area during the Iron Age could have been to a great extent dependent on
interplay between the territories that started to form during the Early Iron Age.

6.5. Risks, inequality and power

6.5.1. The handling of risks

In systemic approaches to archaeology, ‘subsistence stress’ has been regarded as

a major stimulus for change in sociocultural systems. Subsistence stress is caused
by the interaction of environmental, demographic and behavioural variables, and
develops when the environment and subsistence technology available to a group
is inadequate to support the existing population (e.g. Dean et al. 1994). Systemic
change occurs when a population exceeds the ‘carrying capacity’ of a particular
adaptive configuration or when environmental degradation lowers the carrying
capacity below the level of the existing population. Another, slightly similar concept
and way of thinking relates to the concept of ‘surplus capacity’, which refers to the

171
A comparable possibility has been suggested by Raninen (2005a: 240) regarding
Merovingian Period “cultural provinces”, which he has emphasized as united by
networks of interaction and cooperation rather than by single political formations or
ethnic territories. According to his view, competition and even aggression could be
seen as reasons for increased interaction, rather than reasons for decreased contacts and
divergence.

348
difference between capacity and common needs. If a crisis occurs in a period of
expanding capacity and a slow rise of common needs, i.e. in a period of high surplus
capacity, the crisis can be more easily overcome than during a period when the
whole capacity is needed to fulfil common needs (Myrdal 2005: 97-100). In the latter
case structural adjustments are needed which may result in a larger scale societal
crisis. This addresses surplus as a buffer in times of crisis. Permanent or long-term
shortfalls or crises may produce new adaptive systems, but most cultural systems
are able to handle short-term production shortfalls through buffering mechanisms
such as storage, adjustments in subsistence practices, and exchange.
Environmental variability can be characterised using a terminology reviewed
by Dean et al. (1994). Three overlapping classes of variability can be discussed:
1) stable factors that can vary in space, but remain essentially constant; 2) low
frequency process (LFP) variability, with periodicities of 25 years or more; and
3) high frequency process (HFP) variability, with periodicities of less than 25
years. In agricultural societies, HFP variability might, for example, be related to
yearly variations affecting the yield of cultivation. As noted above in the case of
abandonment, such factors would probably be felt chiefly on an individual or
household level and would not alone be expected to lead to large adjustments.
Major regional adjustments would more probably occur in cases of LFP variability
affecting subsistence. The process of change, however, is quite complex, as a single
life-time is usually insufficient to distinguish a long-term trend from normal yearly
fluctuations. This suggests that in most cases decisions have been made on the
basis of short-term observations, even if these episodes of change may have been
parts of a low frequency process.
One long-term process during the Early Iron Age which is suggested to have
affected settlement and subsistence is climatic deterioration. In this case too the
effects would primarily have been experienced in the yearly cycle of life, perhaps
involving some years of unexpected conditions. As reviewed in chapter 5, there is,
however, no evidence of especially severe changes, as agriculture seems to have
expanded all around the Baltic throughout the Late Bronze Age and the Early
Iron Age. What is also important – even if climate could have led to problems,
a normalisation would have been expected at some point during the Iron Age.
Climate fluctuations, however – together with other factors, such as the increasing
importance of agriculture – could have led to a decreased predictability of
subsistence and to a need for increased security and buffering systems. One way
of spreading the risk of uncertainty could have been increased interaction and
cooperation.
Agricultural societies probably always possess certain food acquisition strategies
to buffer environmental fluctuations. To counteract scarcity, societies employ a wide

349
range of buffering practices, designed to lessen variability by dampening its effects
(Halstead & O’Shea 1989: 3). Such buffering mechanisms may include 1) mobility,
2) diversification, 3) physical storage, and 4) exchange (including forms of theft and
even war). All of these are well known from anthropological contexts. Attempts at
modelling risks and buffering strategies have also given interesting information.
The results of a risk-buffering simulation by Gaines & Gaines (2000) suggest that
even a basic strategy of overproduction and emergency storage will improve
chances of handling most random environmental impacts on food supplies. What
kind of possibilities for storage may have existed during the Iron Age in Finland
is, however, not known. Storehouses or other large-scale storage is probably out
of the question. The conditions of storing grain have been considered so poor still
in the Middle Ages that this practice could not have compensated a bad failure
of crops.172 Storage must have meant keeping relatively small amounts of grain,
possible to use as seed after crop failure. The main way of bridging critical periods
after crop failure must have simply been the increased utilisation of additional
non-agricultural resources.
One way of approaching the relationship between social complexity and
buffering mechanisms is to regard the organization itself as the buffer created, thus
enabling storage management, integration of resources etc. (Hassan 1981: 260).
More probably, however, the development should be viewed the other way around;
in the long term it is probable that some safety mechanisms will become regular
aspects of the cultural system, thus shaping social organization and giving rise to
social change and transformation (Halstead & O’Shea 1989: 4-5). A good example
of this might be the institutionalisation of annual gathering and redistribution of
surplus in the form of feasting. We can hypothesise that the further development of
such a system could involve its transformation into a system of taxation.

6.5.2. Taxation

The regular transfer of wealth from the population to the throne in the form of
institutionalised taxation – one of the base definitions of a state system – was
established in the Nordic countries in the 12th and 13th centuries, hand in hand with
the introduction of ecclesiastical taxation. The tenth demanded by the Christian

172
In addition to small-scale storage, risk buffering may, however, during the Middle Ages
have been present in another form. The system of strip parcels (Sw. solskifte) probably
acted as a way of minimizing risks, as the parcels cultivated by each farm were situated
in different locations, thus reducing the risk of losing all crops if difficult conditions hit
some specific type of environment (Olsson & Thomasson 2001: 18).

350
Church was formally based on the Law of Moses and first introduced in Europe
in the 8th century AD (Alifrosti 2003: 215). Due to the abstract nature of the tax, the
collection of it demanded a strong position and good organization of the Church.
The tax paid in cereals was suitable for developed agrarian areas, but due to the
character of production in the peripheries, the tenth could also be paid in different
products and based on agreements rather than strict calculations (Myöhänen
2000: 30; Välimäki 2000: 52). The early taxes of the crown, on the other hand,
were apparently defined one by one in a more tangible manner to suit the current
situation of different areas. In central areas taxes were based on the duty of the king
to organise military campaigns, whereas on the periphery taxes could have been
paid for protection (Alifrosti 2003: 216). According to this view, a taxation of land
did not develop before the consolidation of the power of the state.
Establishing a connection between some older – prehistoric – form of taxation
and later ecclesiastical or crown taxes is complicated, but not unthinkable. In
Swedish research, for example, a connection between the prehistoric ledung system
and its medieval counterpart båtlag has been considered. Although both terms
principally refer to the duty of providing a ship for the king, the båtlag system
has been regarded as a system of taxation units rather than an actual organization
of maritime warfare. There might, however, be a indirect connection, in the sense
that the idea of paying a fee based on the old scheme of providing a ship might
have been easier to accept by the community than a totally new taxation system
(Alifrosti 2003: 214-216). There are a couple of documents from the years 1380
and 1450 regarding båtlag units from Finland as well. According to Alifrosti (2003:
215), this could indicate that southwestern Finland was comparable to the Swedish
central areas where the medieval taxation was negotiated and organised according
to older units. This is based on the idea that the king’s power in the early process of
state formation actually was weaker in the central areas, which prohibited drastic
reorganization of society, whereas new ideas, like more abstracts forms of taxation,
could have been first introduced in peripheral areas.
Regarding early Finnish taxation one line of discussion has evolved from the
etymology of the Finnish word vero (tax). For example, Voionmaa (1912: 41-42),
following the idea of Henrik Gabriel Porthan (1739–1804), was of the opinion that
vero originally had the meaning of a sacrifice. Thus, the origin of the system of
taxation could be found in the ancient offering society, where people gathered in
offering feasts and each owner of a farm was supposed to bring a contribution
of food or drink. Such a system would have been basically local and based on
free will, one aspect being the achievement of immaterial (religious) goals (cf.
Myöhänen 2000: 13). The etymology of vero is, however, not simple. The word is
regarded to be old and indigenous, but in Finno-Ugric languages several meanings

351
occur, such as a meal, a cultivated area, or a place, the latter regarded as probably
being the original meaning of the word (Itkonen et al. 1978: 1709; Häkkinen 2004:
1474). It is thus uncertain whether the word has anything to do with sacrifice. If
such a meaning is present, it is indirect, i.e. one could speculate whether it refers
to the meal as a sacrifice, perhaps a cultivated area, the yield of which was to be
sacrificed, or the sacrificial place. These are, of course, just guesses.
Among historians, the idea of vero originally meaning sacrifice is still repeated
(e.g. Myöhänen 2000; Välimäki 2000). Otherwise the idea presented by Voionmaa
has also been regarded as basically correct. According to this view, the earliest
Finnish tax – as in non-hierarchic societies in general – was based on voluntary
religious offerings of food and drink. Due to prehistoric skirmishes and raids,
and finally the ambitions of the Catholic Church as well as the crown, taxes were
collected also for profane purposes and developed into an obligatory remittance.
Possibly the first taxes were irregular and paid for protection or as tribute, or for
treating. Furthermore, taxes and workdays could have been obligatory for the
upkeep of local authorities and administration.173 The medieval taxation thus may
have contained reminiscences of ancient Finnish taxation habits, but the norms
of taxation were for the most part introduced by foreign government (Myöhänen
2000: 30; Välimäki 2000: 57-58).
If more primitive forms of taxation are not accounted for, the ecclesiastical
taxation, probably established by the end of the 12th century, can be considered as
the earliest tax in Finland, whereas the secular crown taxation became regular and
permanent not until a hundred years later (Alifrosti 2003: 216-217; cf. Myöhänen
2000: 30; Välimäki 2000: 52). There are, however, a few earlier documents than this
referring to taxation of land. In the early sources the main taxation units are the
‘hook’ (Fi. koukku), referring to a type of ard, and the ‘smoke’ (Fi. savu), referring to
a homestead. Both of these soon lost their original meaning and were also divided
– for example the term ‘half a koukku’ is used as early as 1254 and also the savu
seems to have lost its original meaning referring to a homestead or farm already
before the 14th century (Alifrosti 2003: 217).

173
In addition, hierarchial dependence relationships suggested to have existed between
farms of different status, including rented farms and unfree tenants (Pihlman 2004),
may have included obligations of a tax-like character. One sketch of such a system
has been drawn by Riikonen (2004: 29), starting from the point that the number of
individuals identifiable in Late Iron Age cemeteries is too small to represent the amount
of work needed to collect the wealth displayed in some of the graves. In addition to
working the fields, people living at smaller farms may, according to Riikonen, have had
the obligation to produce and deliver to the main farm, for example, dried fish and seal
blubber, forest game, tar, smithery products, thread spun from wool or finished textiles.
This gave the opportunity to obtain imports and equip a defence force, which was the
guarantee for safety. This description includes aspects comparable to early forms of
taxation.

352
 The general view on the development of taxation in southwestern Finland –
almost exclusively based on historical sources – thus emphasizes the process of
consolidation of the Catholic Church and state formation, i.e. the impact of external
authorities during the early Middle Ages. When prehistoric taxation is discussed,
it is usually with reference to offerings and other voluntary or irregular forms of
gathering surplus for common purposes. This is quite different from the debate in
Estonia, where taxation of cultivated land has been regarded as starting as early
as the Late Bronze Age and the Pre-Roman Iron Age. This demonstrates the great
difference in attitudes towards interpretations of early hierarchies and the level
of prehistoric organization. In Estonia, the discussion of the vakus units has been
especially important. One important point in Lang’s (2002b) idea of the vakus is
that it is regarded as a local institution. In his opinion there is no reason to assume
conquest or foreign rulers essential for the “establishment of such a necessary and
ordinary system as the gathering of taxes”.

6.5.3. Social inequality and heterogeneity

It has often been noted that after the adoption of agriculture, societies tend
to evolve into more complex entities. The intertwined relationships between
agricultural intensification, population growth, political integration and the
diversification of social roles usually also seem to be associated with an increase
in social inequality (Gumerman & Gell-Mann 1994: 15-16). Increase in complexity,
as reflected in specialisation and exchange, were earlier seen mainly as parts of a
spontaneous process of economic growth, but later two main lines of development
were discussed. Some approaches stress redistribution as an important step of
development (the corporate mode), while others stress the strategic efforts by
political elites (the network mode) as most consequential (Brumfiel & Earle 1987: 1,
3; Feinman 1995: 263-268).
In trying to understand the emergence of inequality, it is useful to distinguish
between inequality and heterogeneity. Inequality refers to different access to
material and social resources, while heterogeneity refers to the distribution
of people between social groups (McGuire 1983: 93). The concepts are not
synonymous nor necessarily positively correlated. Archaeologically both
inequality and heterogeneity can be visible. Heterogeneity is related to different
roles – social personae – in society, which may be maintained by the use of material
or behavioural symbols, while inequality is reflected in the distribution of material
resources within different groups (McGuire 1982: 102-104). What is important to
realise is that a multiplicity of roles does not necessarily mean a highly stratified

353
society. Heterogeneity is affected above all by the degree of independence of social
parameters, ‘independence’ meaning that an individual’s membership in one social
group does not automatically entail membership in another (McGuire 1982: 108-
110). Increasing independence increases heterogeneity but may counterbalance
power, thus lowering relative inequality in society.
This study has not included a systematic presentation and analysis of cemetery
materials (as these are missing in the main part of the study area), but a couple
of points can be made with reference to the question of cultural complexity and
inequality, starting from the general idea of rich graves as an indication of social
competition. It has been noted that some of the Finnish Iron Age grave finds from the
period of 300-700 AD are more indicative of some sort of "principals or optimates"
than Late Iron Age cemetery materials, which have a more "egalitarian" character
(Meinander 1980: 10). It can be underlined, however, that graves containing orna­
ments and weapons already occurring before 300 AD (cf. Kivikoski 1937b; Salo 1968;
1984c; Keskitalo 1979) may be indica­­tive of socio-political change. In some cases
rich Early Iron Age graves have even been seen as a reflection of social complexity
related to some external force. Meinander (1987: 18), for example, has suggested
that there may have existed a Germanic superstratum during the Roman Iron Age
in the northern part of Finland Proper.
The discussion on the Late Roman Iron Age has been continued by Raninen
(e.g. 2005b), who has made some comments on the richest graves, finds of precious
metals, Roman imports etc. One of his examples is the Katajanmäki cemetery in
Salo (within the present study area), containing pieces of necklaces of gold and
silver, bronze ornaments, fragments of a bronze chain possibly belonging to a
drinking horn, etc. (e.g. Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 33-37; Hirviluoto 1991: 85-91).
Raninen (2005b: 202-205) points out the Late Roman Iron Age as an important
period of change in the southern part of Scandinavia with regard to social
stratification. He furthermore notes that similar tendencies can be traced in other
parts of Scandinavia and in Estonia as well. Although Finland was in a peripheral
position compared with these areas, Raninen (2005b: 217) acknowledges that the
acquirement of Roman imports and objects made of precious metals must have
required resources that not everyone could possess. It is even possible that local
elites in Finland occasionally made direct contacts with central areas in southern
Scandinavia. Such contacts would, according to Raninen, mostly have involved
contacts between local elites, where the exchange of goods was related to the
maintenance of alliances. He reaches the conclusion that social differentiation was
visible and real in southwestern Finland during the Late Roman Iron Age.
A development comparable to that of southwestern Finland with regard to both
settlement clustering as well as socio-political complexity has also been emphasized

354
in the case of southern Ostrobothnia. A strong concentration of both settlement
and power has been identified starting with the Late Roman Iron Age – especially
in the 4th century when richly furnished graves occur (Herrgård & Holmblad
2005: 175-179). The interpretation given is that densely settled central districts
developed, surrounded by thinly populated hinterlands, replacing the older, more
evenly spaced settlement pattern. This development also involved more marked
hierarchies, manifested by local elites inspired by aristocratic groups in southern
Scandinavia and continental Europe.
As these examples show, rich graves of the Roman Iron Age have been regarded
as status-defining symbols of a social elite. Another possibility would be that
especially the weapon graves reflect a society under some kind of pressure (cf. Kaliff
1997: 33-34). The gathering and expression of wealth, which the rich Early Iron
Age graves represent, would thus not have been of interest to some part of society
merely for the sake of wealth as such, but due to its status-defining properties.
The significance of wealth in early complex societies is obviously related to the
important role of symbols and ideology – especially in processes of political change
(cf. Brumfiel & Earle 1987: 7-9). The Early Iron Age cemeteries could be seen as a
sign of increased competition and struggle for power between leading families,
larger kinship groups or settlement areas. In addition to external influences, this
might be related to the local process of formation of a new settlement structure
with a stronger emphasis on the relationships between settlement units.
Returning to the question of heterogeneity and inequality, it is evident that
Finnish Roman Period graves are indicative of an increased social heterogeneity.
How access to resources was administered, however, remains unclear, as does the
level of interdependence between social roles. Wealthy cemeteries most probably
represent wealthy farms or families or even larger kinshp groups, but whether
they also represent members of privileged social groups, defined by some other
characteristics, is more difficult to conclude. The deliberate display of wealth does,
however, suggest that the cemeteries belonged to a distinct elite, indicative of an
increase in inequality. In addition to representing single influential farmsteads
or families, the cemeteries are most probably also related to status definition and
manifestation of power on a more general level, both within their own microregion
and in relation to other, external units of social organization.

6.5.4. The totalistic approach to power and inequality

Theoretical approaches towards an understanding of power can be coarsely divided

into three categories, namely realistic, liberal and totalistic. The first category is

355
represented by, for example, Machiavelli and Hobbes, the second by Locke and
Montesquieu, and the third by Foucault (Nordin 1991). The most interesting
approach is the totalistic one, where power is seen as a dimension present in all
human relations. It is obvious that in all cultures there exists some hierarchy or
control over decision-making, and thus inequality of power, but the question of
power and inequality can be taken further, to the level of individual qualities.
There have been attempts to distinguish power as an element in all aspects of social
life, instead of regarding power as something specifically related to forms of social
control (Miller & Tilley 1984; Paynter & McGuire 1991). This is in accordance with
Foucault’s idea of power. According to this view, institutions, social mechanisms
etc. are not the source of power but forms that power may take – "power is not
possessed by individuals or institutions, but exercised by them" (Miller & Tilley
1984: 6).
Projecting Foucault's idea on power back to a prehistoric society is not
unproblematic as he predominantly dealt with post-medieval and contemporary
society. The state, and the power executed by the state, was, for example, within
his interest. He, of course, referred to ancient thinkers and texts, but in fact never
really discussed ancient forms of execution of power. The question, how far back
into our cultural history power can be extended, was asked by Dreyfus & Rabinow
(1983: 207) in their book on Foucault, but Foucault himself did not take up this
line of approach. He just referred to a change of technologies of power in the 17th
and 18th century when power came to exercise itself through social production
and social service (in comparison with feudal societies where power functioned
through signs of loyalty, rituals, ceremonies and levies) (e.g. Faubion 1994: 125). The
main importance for interpretations concerning prehistoric societies are Foucault’s
general thoughts on power, subjects of power and power relations. He rejected
the possibility that there existed some level of societies without power relations.
According to his view, such a society “can only be an abstraction” (Foucault 1982:
222-223).
Foucault’s work did not primarily seek to explain what power is, but to show
how effects of power could be analysed. For him, power was a concept related
to the understanding of how social practices work – a necessary concept for the
analysis of the subject of power as well as the effects of the possession of power
(e.g. Foucault 1982: 208-209; Dreyfus & Rabinow 1983: 207; Smart 2002: 70). A basic
standpoint for the understanding of power is that it is “always already there” and
“no one is never outside it” (Foucault 1980: 141). Power is not a rare substance, nor
some mysterious property, but only a certain type of relation between individuals,
the characteristic feature of which is that some men can determine other men’s
conduct. This de-mystifying of the concept of power is important for the discussion

356
on social complexity. Even if taking the most minimalistic view on sociopolitical
development in, for example, southwestern Finland during the Iron Age, this
cannot mean the lack of power relationships.
Foucault saw power as employed and exercised through a chain or net-like
organization, where individuals are “always in the position of simultaneously
undergoing and exercising this power“ (Foucault 1980: 98; cf. Smart 2002: 72).
What is also important is that the network of power is interwoven with many
kinds of common relations like kinship, family, sexuality etc. (Foucault 1980: 142).
This means that power is not restricted to political institutions. For example, the
“metapower” of the state is based on multiple and indefinite power relations
which supply the necessary basis for greater forms of power (Faubion 1994: 123).
Furthermore, the basis not only affects the superstructure, but also vice versa. Power
relations are multidirectional, operating from the top down and also from the
bottom up (Dreyfus & Rabinow 1983: 185). Although power relations are rooted
in the systems of social networks, Foucault did not directly correlate power with
communication, but saw that they overlap and support each other. Relationships of
communication, modifying the field of information between partners, thus produce
effects of power (Foucault 1982: 218).
One key concept for Foucault was that of 'government', which for him meant the
conduct of others conduct. Power thus could be simplified as government of men
by other men. The government – whether it is power applied by men over women,
or by adults over children, or by one class over another, or by a bureaucracy over
a population – involves a certain type of ‘rationality’, but in itself does not involve
violence (Foucault 1982: 219-221; Faubion 1994: 324-325; cf. Gordon 1994: xxix). This
does not mean that power could not be exercised in a way leading to aggression and
physical constraint. Rationality refers to the fact that power relations are intentional
and non-subjective, i.e. there is no power that is exercised without specific aims
and objectives (cf. Dreyfus & Rabinow 1983: 187; Smart 2002: 70). Foucault also
acknowledged the idea (which in some contexts has been regarded as a cliché), that
where there is power there is also resistance. According to Foucault, resistances are
formed right at the point where relations of power are exercised (e.g. Foucault 1980:
142; cf. Faubion 1994: 324).
Foucault saw power as totalistic, but by no means only negative, although
it could lead to negative effects for individuals or groups of society. As put by
Gordon (1994: xix), Foucault’s view was that "nothing, including the exercise of
power is evil in itself – but everything is dangerous". One of Foucault’s points was
that power is productive. The mechanisms and effects of power cannot be reduced
only to repression, as this would neglect the positive and productive features of
relations of power – features that can be identified as elements in many societies

357
(cf. Smart 2002: 71). Power thus is something ordinary, present in all relationships
– in principle neutral, but loaded with intentional aims and making available
many possible outcomes. One option is that the effects of power lead to increased
inequality. Miller & Tilley (1984) have criticised Foucault for failing to attribute
power to agents, i.e. individuals or institutions deriving benefits from the use of
power. Even if power cannot be possessed, prestige and resources – material or
non-material – can be possessed as an effect of the operation of power. This is the
clue to how power can be archaeologically visible: power is visible through its
effects.
This is comparable to one way in which the question of inequality has been
approached. The idea of agricultural economies, population growth or resource
stress as automatic launchers of social differentiation has been questioned; these
factors may create risks and opportunities, but they are not sufficient explanations for
the institutionalisation of inequality (Feinman 1995: 256-259). What is important to
realise is that inequality is not restricted to stratified societies; a degree of inequality,
in terms for instance of gender, age or ability, exists in the most egalitarian systems,
as do personal differences in ambition, charisma and skills (Feinman 1995: 256, 261-
262). Inequality is thus present in all situations, just as all individuals and groups
exercise power and are subject to its exercise (Miller & Tilley 1984: 6). Following this
line of thinking, the archaeology of inequality and power does not have to proceed
from kings, castles and the power of the church (cf. Steane 2001) – inequality and
power have also been elements in much more primitive societies. The emergence
and possible institutionalisation of inequalities in economic and political power can
in principle be regarded as, above all, a question of personal ambition and relations
formed between a leader and his supporters, and of their relations with people
outside their alliance. Such factions arise because the followers receive benefits and
rewards for their support (Feinman 1995: 262-263).
As mentioned earlier, two main strategies towards inequality have been
recognised: the corporate mode and the network mode. The corporate mode is
group-oriented, while the network mode is based more on individual prestige.
The corporate mode "emphasises collective ritual (and its potential manipulation),
public construction, integrated social segments, the importance of kinship
affiliation, and relatively suppressed economic differentiation", while in contrast
the network mode "places greatest significance on individual prestige and wealth
accumulation, personal networks, long-distance exchange, and the specialized
manufacture of status-related craft goods" (Feinman 1995: 268). These political-
economic strategies cannot be regarded as totally excluding each other, and they
are in no way unchanging over time. If the idea of the corporate and network
mode is applied to the archaeological data from the study area, we might ask, for

358
example, whether the building of cairns during the Bronze Age can be seen as a
collective ritual of a corporate mode social strategy, and the appearance of Roman
Period burials containing grave goods as a reflection of a change towards a social
strategy of the network mode?
One more concept related to social complexity, of interest in discussing Finnish
Early Iron Age society, is the ‘ranked society’. Ranked societies are defined as those
in which there are fewer available status positions than persons qualified to fill
them, but in which true or pervasive differential access to the means of production
is lacking (Price 1984: 210, 222-231). In other words, the idea of a ranked society
includes heterogeneity and status definition, but excludes actual control of access
to resources. In a ranked society, the main manifestation of the relationship between
a leader and his supporters is redistribution, for example in the form of occasional
feasting. The importance of drinking and feasting as a socio-political practice of
political leaders in Iron Age Europe has been emphasized using both historical
and archaeological evidence (Arnold 1999; 2001).174 One conclusion reached is that
alcohol and feasting were used to maintain the leaders’ privileges and to reward
warrior elites as well as other clients of the chief or king. Feasting was a form
of communication between leaders as well as between them and others. To the
supporters, the yearly returns from such a system may be very low, but, on the
other hand, a group with a ranked society pattern usually has the advantage of
increased security due to buffering in periods of poor harvest and military power
in periods of aggression. Some part of the collected surplus may also be invested in
the conversion of potential aggressors into potential allies (Price 1984: 218). And –
once again – it has to be noted that redistribution may develop into a type of tax or
“staple finance” (Brumfiel & Earle 1987: 6), where subsistence goods are collected
by authorities and then given to non-productive officials or other personnel.

6.5.5. Power in Finnish archaeology

Power and conflict have increasingly been addressed as relevant themes in Finnish
research, too. Economic profit, power and possession (cf. Grünthal 2002: 11) have
entered the discussion as potential motives for actions even within the prehistoric
society. Earlier, mostly military power – related to hill-forts as well as weapon
graves – had been under discussion. For example, Salmo (1938: 308-309) expressed

174
Drinking as a social phenomenon in the Bronze Age has also been emphasized.
According to Randsborg (1998: 117), the demonstration of political and religious power
during period II over time turned towards elite social drinking during period III.

359
some ideas of Iron Age society when dealing with Finnish weaponry of the
Merovingian Period. According to him, the population in the Merovingian Period
was still so small that prerequisites for the forming of an army did not exist; both
the military and social units were either based on kinship or certain geographical
areas. A joint force uniting a widespread tribe under common leadership would
thus have been possible only in times of overwhelming difficulties. On the other
hand, Salmo (1938: 336-337) pointed out that no foreign power had a permanent
position in Finland during the Merovingian Period; according to him, this probably
indicates a notable military strength of the Finnish tribes of the time. This latter
view has been questioned by Wickholm & Raninen (2003: 6-7; cf. Raninen 2003:
16). Furthermore, Salmo’s (1938) idea of the Finnish Merovingian Period weapon
graves as “warrior graves” has been questioned by Schauman-Lönnqvist (1996:
130-131), who would rather link the weapon burials with the social position of the
deceased. With reference to Pihlman (1990) she has classified such weapon graves
as belonging not to warriors but to “wealthy farmers”.
When discussing the common occurrence of weapons in Merovingian Period
cemeteries Wickholm and Raninen (2003: 7) have pointed out that the weapons
– related to status definition but also to a warrior ideology – were more probably
used in small-scale conflicts between local individuals or small groups than in
battle against a foreign enemy. The leaders within the Merovingian Period society
might according to Wickholm and Raninen (2003: 10-11; cf. Raninen 2003: 21;
2005a) have been of a ‘big man’ or ‘chief’ type, basing their position on the ability to
organise activities of importance for the community: feasts, work projects, combat
activities, the solving of conflicts, foreign contacts etc. Wickholm and Raninen (2003:
10) describe such a leader as a ‘manager’. The rich graves of the period would,
according to this view, rather represent the symbolic capital – honour, reputation
and social rank – of the deceased than wealth in a material sense (Wickholm and
Raninen 2003: 11).
The discussion was later extended further back into prehistory, recognizing
the occurrence of weapon graves starting with the Early Roman Iron Age and,
for example, cemeteries expressing wealth during the Late Roman Iron Age. In
connection with the interpretation of the weapon graves in the Early Roman Iron
Age Kärsämäki cemetery, Raninen (2005c: 52-53) has discussed leadership and
organization. He has repeated the idea of a ‘big man’ type of leadership, where the
chiefs would have had rather limited power and authority. On the other hand, he
regards it possible, that status groups existed, the participants of which may have
been involved in, for example, wilderness utilisation, the organization of exchange,
combat activities or the use of armed threat. One thing pointed out by Raninen is
that such a group cannot have maintained its position by force and threat only. Such

360
strategies may have been successful for winning a local position, but achieving
some common good must also have been of importance.
The existence of some kind of structural inequality is even more evident within
the Late Roman Iron Age society. The acquiring of precious metals and Roman
imports must have required the control of power resources, that could not have
been detained by anyone. The possession and distribution of the objects themselves
were probably also restricted. Social differentiation must have been visible and
real (Raninen 2005b: 217-219). What kind of power resources these objects were
related to, Raninen sees as problematic. One possibility is, that the elite dominated
exchange with foreign societies. Surplus for exchange may have been obtained
through the organization of fur trade or taxation of the inland. The contact
networks upheld by elites crossed the borders of local societies and could have
been extensive. One reason why networks could have been far reaching was the
need for military alliances during a period when war and violence were common
enough to be reflected even on the peripheries of the Baltic. According to Raninen
(2005b), this did not, however, lead to the birth of solid, centrally administered and
permanent territorial structures.
In a more general discussion, Raninen (2003: 19-21) has made some comments
on the “minimalistic” interpretations of the complexity of Finnish Iron Age society.
According to him, there are reasons to keep to this idea in the sense that Finland
was, as still in the Middle Ages, a periphery in relation to phenomena usually
connected with socio-economic complexity. On the other hand, he asks why the
circumstances, for example, in Finland Proper would have been radically different
from that of the Mälaren area in Sweden? Raninen’s own idea of the Finnish Iron Age
society is that a dominating central government did not exist, rather an authority,
with which local groups could form “symbiotic” mutual relationships, although
in a non-symmetric, hierarchical manner. The political structures had the form of
contact networks of local elites, which involved the construction of hierarchies,
alliances and cooperation as well as violent competition (e.g. Raninen 2005a: 238;
2005b: 205-206). The relationships between a leader and local groups may have been
unstable – they may have changed, been looser or broken, or may have led to inner
conflicts from time to time. Within these networks some power centres emerged
which were able to maintain authority and resources for several generations or
centuries, while others lasted only shorter periods. Such loose power structures
and hierarchies (including violence as a form of execution of power) seem to have
entered the scene in the Roman Period (e.g. Raninen 2003: 21; 2005b; 2005c; 2006; cf.
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1996).
Raninen’s (2003) view of Iron Age society is not far from Cassel’s (1998: 197)
view of Roman Period society on Gotland. Instead of centralised power, she

361
emphasises a dynamic society where stable and institutionalised structures are
lacking; power or dominion was, instead, negotiated personally, which demanded
the presence and legitimisation of the leader. Thus power relations could have been
in constant change. One could imagine that such an irregular system of power and
leadership would archaeologically be visible in the cemetery patterns within the
present study area, where the general pattern of microregions prevails, but during
different periods different areas or cemeteries display wealth. These changes within
microregions do not necessarily reflect a lack of cohesion, but the power dynamics
within the territory and in relation to other territories. Some discontinuity is to be
expected, and is in accordance with Cassel's theory of a society where dominion
and leadership need to be personally negotiated and legitimated with different
strategies during different periods.
Power has been increasingly dealt with within Latvian Iron Age archaeology too,
thus providing an opportunity for comparison. Andris Šnē (e.g. 2000a; 2005a) has
interpreted the Late Iron Age society of the Finno-Ugric Livs as open to influences,
with a wide middle class with collective power structures based on tradition, trade
and warfare. The power of leaders and chiefs has been interpreted as limited,
as in a classical chiefdom-type of society. Craft specialisation, site hierarchy, an
increasing role of warfare and control over trade routes can, however, be identified.
Different amounts and values of burial goods indicate economic differentiation,
and status symbols among the grave goods point to social stratification, but at
the same time settlement patterns and the arrangement of social space (the sizes
of houses, for example) are indicative of an egalitarian social organization (Šnē
2001b: 109). Towards the end of the Iron Age, increasing tendencies towards
political centralisation and the monopoly of power by ambitious chiefs started to
occur (e.g. Šnē 2001a). A similar view is offered in the case of southeastern Latvia
where differences in social, political and economic position interpreted from the
grave goods suggest a chiefdom type of society "where chiefs were the first among
equals and their power was far from absolute" (Šnē 2000b: 54). The interpretations
by Šnē (2000a; 2000b; 2001a; 2001b; 2005a; 2005b) concerning Latvia are more or
less in agreement with the general ideas on Finnish Iron Age society presented by
Raninen (e.g. 2003; 2005a).

6.5.6. Aggression

Until the beginning of the 21st century, aggression had not been dealt with to
any great extent in Finnish archaeology, one general reason being the difficulty
of identifying aggression in the archaeological record (e.g. Vencl 1984). Although

362
invisible, however, there is no reason to assume that aggression did not exist.
Aggression can be thought of as one aspect of interaction. The shapes aggression
takes – conflicts, raids, and even war – can be understood as a form of competition
(Price 1984: 210) or exchange (Ferguson 1984: 17), theft or war being the negative
side of normal exchange. In Finland some criticism against the “pacification” of
prehistory has been presented, for example regarding the Stone Age (Lahelma
& Sipilä 2004; Seitsonen 2005). Conflict and aggression of the Iron Age has also
entered the discussion, especially through the efforts of Raninen (e.g. 2006). When
archaeological studies of aggression earlier mostly meant examinations of weapons
and the remains of fortifications, aggression has now been discussed also in the
field of social strategies.
Raninen (2005a: 229) has nicely expressed how weapons occurring in burial
rituals may be interpreted. According to him, the very existence of weapons in
such contexts are evidence of a culture that had both the means and a mental
preparedness for armed conflict. The weapons do not say about the frequency of
armed conflicts, but the existence of weapons must have influenced the way in
which Iron Age people behaved when inevitable conflicts emerged. In other words,
if weapons have a central position in ritual activities, there is reason to also assume
the occurrence of physical violence (Raninen 2006: 8). Aggression was probably
not uncommon, nor restricted to some foreign enemy. One aspect recognized by
Raninen (2006: 9; cf. Näsman 1994: 25; Raninen 2005a: 228-229) is that weapon
graves may indicate specifically local, small scale aggression, like, for instance,
within river valleys, between people living close to each other, knowing each other
and perhaps even having kinship ties.
During the first millennium AD, aggression and violence seem to have played
an important and integrated cultural role; aggression was probably "widespread,
socially accepted and constant" (Herschend 1999: 332). Violence may have been
unwanted in general, but, on the other hand, war and violence may have been
an accepted way of solving conflicts as well as a potential (and even common)
possibility of strengthening ones identity and position in the society (e.g. Johnsen
1997: 117). In some studies the importance of European military development has
been stressed, which may have led to an increased militarisation of society. For
example, the growing importance of cavalry warfare in the Late Roman Iron Age
led in parts of Scandinavia to the development of a cavalry elite, which also took
on a leading role in society (Nicklasson 2001: 143-147).
The form extreme aggression could have taken in a developing ranked society
could have had the character of raids or fights between rival chiefs. Using the
terminology of war, this would have meant endemic war (or ritual war) consisting
of small-scale incidents often governed by normative rules of conduct, probably

363
comprising raids, ravaging and small battles between leaders and their retainers
(e.g. Ringtved 1999: 363-364). Rather than battles between larger forces, combat
might often have meant duels between single warriors, as known from written
sources related to Celtic Europe (Pleiner 1993: 28-33). Raids and ambushes, on
the other hand, were the most common form of primitive warfare because they
are effective at eliminating enemies with a low risk of one’s own casualties. The
typical scenario of such behaviour would be a handful of men sneaking into enemy
territory to kill one or a few people (Keeley 1996: 65-67).
If the emergence of a new site pattern during the Iron Age was related to power
and social organization, the threat of aggression was probably not the only driving
force of aggregation, but it could have been present. If site clustering actually
meant a denser population, the increased safety is merely the other side of the
same coin. Furthermore, we cannot exclude discipline as one of the techniques of
power, aiming at correcting deviations from the norm (Miller & Tilley 1984: 6). War
and less dramatic forms of group competition add a new, non-natural dimension
to the environment, which affects the total costs of living in and exploiting a given
area (Ferguson 1984: 56). This is related to the idea of risks and the handling of
risks. The understanding of risks involves the estimation of both the disadvantage
and the probability of risks, as well as the comparing of these, one tendency being
that new risks are often considered more serious than old risks (Kamppinen et al.
1995: 15, 97-99). Overcoming the risk of aggression would probably have included
increased cooperation (maybe even in the form of settlement pattern change) and
the making of allies.
As ranked institutions develop, one prediction is that central areas will be
relatively pacified, while the risk of warfare will potentially grow in the peripheries,
where the returns of warfare are higher (Price 1984: 229). This could explain
settlement pattern changes affecting margin areas. Warfare, however, is not always
about high returns in relation to costs; it can also involve competition for power
and prestige. In a study by Lindeman (1985) of prehistoric aggression structures
in western Sweden, it was suggested that aggression arose among influential
and powerful groups of people living in regions with plentiful resources – not in
marginal areas or, for example, in situations of economic shortage.
There is no conclusive evidence of aggression of any specific kind during the
Early Iron Age in southwestern Finland. The occurrence of weapon graves since
the Roman Iron Age may, however, give a clue to the status of armed men since that
time. In this study the need to discuss aggression arises not from the occurrence
of weapon graves alone, but from the idea of discontinuity on Kemiönsaari, which
in a broad time context coincides with the first signs of development of central
settlement areas on the mainland. The new pattern of settlement arcahaeological

364
data distinguishable can be accounted for in a number of ways, but one view could
be that it reflects (among other things) a strategy of better defence and military force.
Positive defence aspects of a more clustered settlement pattern could have been a
larger regional labour force, which could be turned into a larger military force (cf.
Price 1984: 214), as well as a more consolidated area to defend, in combination with
large buffer zones between competing regions.

6.6. The Late Iron Age – towards a new change

6.6.1. Iron Age continuity

As noted with regard to the distribution of Iron Age cemeteries, there seems to
have been no major territorial changes within the study area after the Roman Iron
Age. The central settlement areas distinguishable during the Late Roman Iron Age
are all more or less still discernible in the Late Iron Age, and there are no additional
microregions with clusters of Iron Age remains. The fact that the pattern of central
settlement areas, as indicated by the cemeteries (as well as settlement sites and
cup-marked stones), persisted for hundreds of years, probably reflects the impact
of natural geographical borders of the main river valleys, but also a structure
of settlement, which to some extent had become institutionalised. Assuming
that social organization is reflected in the pattern of the archaeological data, it
accordingly would suggest not only a territorial stability, but also continuity of
social organization from the Roman Iron Age to the Late Iron Age. In this study
it has been suggested that the evolvement of this site pattern could have involved
the forming of units of socio-political organization, each of them encompassing the
settlers of one microregion in the mainland river valleys. The preceding discussion
has also explored the possibility that the basic settlement units – the single farms –
within each such territory may have participated (among other things) in a common
cult or redistributive system, the symbolic returns of which were distributed in the
form of feasts (Fi. pidot). If such a scenario is acceptable, these units could represent
an indigenous territorial organization, each unit of which referred to as a pitäjä. The
roots of this organization would be in the new settlement pattern emerging during
the Early Iron Age and persisting throughout the Iron Age.

365
6.6.2. Settlement development of the archipelago

According to Tuovinen (2002a: 42-45; 2005a: 17-18), the leading settlement

archaeological idea of the archipelago has been a "hypothesis of the peripheral nature
of the archipelago", expressed first by Tallgren in 1931, based on the supposedly
unfavourable natural conditions of the area. After the Second World War some
scholars rewrote the hypothesis by adding a Viking threat to the reasons for the
desolation of the archipelago, but the essential core of the idea has been present up
to the 21st century. Tuovinen (2002a: 42, 56, 261-262) does not agree with this; he is
of the opinion that the main reason for the sparseness of Iron Age archaeological
finds in the archipelago has been the lack of archaeological investigations, due to
poor accessibility as well as, for example, the socioeconomic peripheralisation of
the archipelago in the 20th century.175 He also points out that the number of Iron Age
finds and sites have increased rapidly; the number of dwelling sites is still small,
but this is due to the fact that the investigations of dwellings in the archipelago
have been fewer than on the mainland (Tuovinen 2002a: 56).
All these circumstances are worth considering. The main problem is, how much
of the differences in archaeological materials between archipelago and mainland
can be attributed to them. Certain types of sites may be underrepresented, but
probably not to the extent that the general picture will change considerably
in the future. Quite a lot of archaeological investigations have been done in the
archipelago lately and land-use on, for example, Kemiönsaari has for centuries
been comparable to that of the mainland. This should have brought to light more
Iron Age artefacts if the distribution of finds were the same as on the mainland. It
is correct that the amount of archaeological sites in the archipelago has increased
a lot due to increased research, but for the most part this is true concerning other
periods than the Iron Age. Furthermore, the Iron Age sites revealed seem to mainly
date to the very beginning and the end of the Iron Age, thus making the material
difficult to use for proving continuity throughout the Iron Age. This is the case
regarding some of the sites emphasized by Tuovinen (2002a: 265) as indicating Iron
Age inhabitation of the archipelago, i.e. the Kyrksundet trading and settlement site
in Dragsfjärd, the Early Iron Age settlement sites excavated on Kemiönsaari, as well

175
In addition to these ideas Tuovinen (2005a: 18-19) has also pointed out the possibility
that the neglect of archaeological field projects concerning the archipelago could have
been due to Finnish nationalistic ideas where the archipelago was associated with lack
of settlement and ravaging Vikings, while the past of the Finns was sought in different
environments. The lack of interest by Swedish-speaking archaeologists, on the other
hand, Tuovinen sees as possibly related to the moderate line taken in the development
of the dual-language national state.

366
as the enclosure site on the island of Borgholm in Iniö. The idea of Kyrksundet as a
site inhabited all year round is unfounded, as no such traces have been revealed at
the site in spite of large excavations. Borgholm, on the other hand, is not a settlement
site at all and the period of utilization of the site is not known – it could have been
used in the Late Iron Age at the earliest. The biggest problem with regard to the
idea of continuity is thus the fact that the sites known so far cannot be regarded as
representative of the whole of the Iron Age.
On the other hand, Tuovinen’s (2002a) idea of continuity gains support from
more general facts like the favourable archipelago environment as well as the
improbability of any previously settled area suddenly being left unexploited. The
problem of the lack of settlement sites must – as Tuovinen suggests – really be due
to the difficulty of locating such sites. This can be exemplified also regarding the
mainland, where the settlement of some periods is almost solely reflected in the
distribution of cemeteries. A further problem (in addition to those mentioned by
Tuovinen) with regard to the definition of continuity in a long-term perspective,
is the use of wide timescales for the Stone Age and the Early Metal Period. Within
the supposed continuity from the Bronze Age to the Pre-Roman Iron Age, the age
difference between archaeological indications of settlement may well be in the
range of several hundreds of years, i.e. comparable to the time-span of several
periods of the Iron Age AD.
In addition to the archaeological material other indications of settlement
continuation in the archipelago have also been discussed by Tuovinen. He has, for
example, pointed out that there are no ecological reasons for the earlier supposed
harsh environment of the archipelago; even potential soil for small-scale agriculture
and cattle breading was present (Tuovinen 2002a: 262-263). This is supported by
the comparison of soil types between Kemiönsaari and the mainland part of the
study area, according to which the island would have been suitable for agriculture
throughout the Iron Age. Also the location of the Early Iron Age settlement sites
on Kemiönsaari supports the idea of a community already practising agriculture.
Tuovinen (2002a: 266-269) furthermore adds pollen analysis and onomastic
studies to the repertoire of facts in accordance with the supposed continuation
from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and beyond. Regarding the onomastic
material, it is true that it reveals a stage of contacts between a Swedish-speaking
and a Finnish-speaking population, but probably this most of all represents the
medieval colonization stage – it cannot be used to evidence continuity throughout
the whole of the Iron Age. Single Finnish toponyms may be very old, reflecting
ancient utilization of the archipelago, but a more exact dating of the material as
a whole is not possible. The palynological material is different, as it can be well-
dated, and contains unquestionable evidence of Iron Age cultivation and presence

367
in the archipelago. This has been confirmed also in the Kemiönsaari case. All five
samples analysed from the island show either continuous or sporadic cultivation
during the Viking Age at the latest. The intensification of agriculture during the
Late Iron Age may be related to settlement expansion and an increased presence in
the archipelago as indicated also by the archaeological material, or – at least partly
– to the increased cultivation of rye, which produces a larger amount of pollen to
be reflected in the palynological samples. For the period preceding the Viking Age
it is more difficult to see any clear pattern, sporadic cultivation occurring during
different periods at different sites, starting with the Late Neolithic. The palynological
analysis (Appendix 2) suggests occasional slash-and-burn cultivation with lengthy
interruptions in addition to grazing as the explanation for the pollen data prior to
the Viking Age.
In his final discussion on the role of the archipelago during the Iron Age Tuovinen
(2002a: 275) has presented the idea of a barter system between the inhabitants of
the archipelago and those of the mainland for reducing risks due to agriculture.
This would have involved economic contacts of a similar character as known from
the Historical Period when islanders traded fish, meat, eggs, butter and firewood
with central settlement areas in exchange for grain, salt, hemp, and iron. This is not
an overall good analogy. The problem is that the Historical Period settlement of the
archipelago is known to have been extensive. One may ask, once again, why is the
Iron Age settlement of the archipelago so sparsely reflected in the archaeological
record (other than the Iron Age cairns, as suggested by Tuovinen), if it had the
potential of functioning as a balancing factor in the economy of southwestern
Finland during the Iron Age?
The idea presented by Tuovinen (2002a) of two different modes of life – one
archipelagic and one mainland-agricultural – is in a way a parallel to the coastal
agriculturalist versus inland and northern Finnish mixed farming or hunter-
gatherer dichotomy that evidently was a reality during the Iron Age. Such a
model concerning the coastal mainland and the archipelago is, of course, possible
– even probable in the light of Tuovinen’s reasoning. The difference concerning
the archipelago, when compared to the situation regarding the coast versus the
inland, is that there was such a strong long-term cultural similarity of the areas
throughout the Stone and Early Metal Period, including indications of a similar
development on Kemiönsaari even in the Pre-Roman Iron Age. The development
of different modes of life would thus have happened surprisingly late and affected
the previously similar culture in an amazingly significant manner. As surprising
it seems, a thousand years later – after a colonization process – archipelago and
mainland again show many similarities in the pattern of both material culture and
type of settlement.

368
 If the idea of two modes of life is accepted, the divergence could rather have been
due to the new settlement pattern and organization developing on the mainland,
than directly to economic reasons. In a long-term perspective the problematic
Iron Age period sparse in finds in the archipelago could, in principle, be seen as
something similar to the decrease of relative importance of the archipelago in the
20th century. It must be admitted that this is rather a provocative thought than a
real analogy. On Kemiönsaari the development led to a diminishing of the total
population of the island from about 12 500 inhabitants in the 1950’s to about 8 500
in the 1990’s (Tikkanen & Westerholm 1992: 57-58). The development was most
severe in the municipalities of Kemiö and Västanfjärd, which both lost more than
40 % of their population during the 20th century. This late "recession" has partly
been explained as a consequence of economic crises of coastal fishing (cf. Tuovinen
2002a: 261). In a broader perspective, the decrease was also due to economic and
political reasons promoting industrialisation and the development of towns and
other centres – perhaps not totally different reasons from those that may have
affected the development of the archipelago when certain areas on the mainland
started to become prominent during the Iron Age.

6.6.3. The problem of Iron Age cairns in the archipelago

The most important material in Tuovinen’s (2002a) interpretation of the Iron Age
continuity of settlement in the archipelago are the cairns, the majority of which he
has been able to date to the Iron Age. According to Tuovinen (2002a: 262; cf. 2002b:
116-117), the Iron Age cairns can no longer be explained as built by sporadic sailors
as both their morphology and the choice of site indicate a continuation of the cairn
tradition and a knowledge of local circumstances. Thus the custom of erecting
burial cairns in the archipelago reflect a very slow change of religion and world
view, and bear witness to an extraordinary continuity of settlement and subsistence
economy (e.g. Tuovinen 1997: 22).
One important question with regard to the Iron Age group R cairns presented
by Tuovinen (2002a) is, whether they really account for all the periods of the Iron
Age? Is there really continuity within the group, or could there be more cairns from
some periods than from others? Furthermore, one may ask whether the similar
morphology and the choice of site are arguments valid enough to show continuity,
as the type of construction is, more or less, just “a simple, externally structureless
heap of stones” (Tuovinen 2002a: 264)? Tuovinen points out that the shore zone
datings of the cairns do not reveal any interruption or discontinuity which might
be expected if the archipelago had remained a desolate wilderness for 15 centuries.

369
Another question is, whether shorter discontinuities or changes in the intensity of
building stone constructions can be ruled out?
The division of cairns into one older group and one younger group is basically
simple and understandable. According to Tuovinen (2002a: 180), it is “enough to
state that the cairn dates either from the Bronze or the Iron Age”. This chronological
division is somewhat problematic, however, due to the general Late Bronze Age –
Pre-Roman Iron Age continuity. In addition to the well known fact that cairns were
still built during the Pre-Roman Iron Age, continuity is indicated by similarities
in material culture, type and location of settlement sites as well as areal or site
continuity of settlement. The Makila and Tappo sites are examples of this applying
to Kemiönsaari as well as to the mainland. What is underlined here is that the
most important changes happened not at the beginning of the Iron Age but later,
during the Early Iron Age, becoming most apparent during the first centuries AD.
With regard to the tradition of erecting cairns, it would seem natural that the Pre-
Roman Iron Age was a period of transformation during which cairns could still
contain ideas deriving from the Bronze Age, although new practices with regard to
the location and form of the cairns can also be seen. This might be reflected in the
problems of a couple of the Makila cairns (if they are from the Pre-Roman Iron Age
as has been suggested in this study) ending up in the Bronze Age group P instead
of R in Tuovinen’s (2002a) division. The problem of a period of change does not,
however, question the very essence of the statistical division. Single cases can be
expected to differ from the norms; some Pre-Roman cairns have probably ended
up in group P, others in group R. Otherwise there is little evidence of any other
problems with regard to the two groups of cairns and their datings. So far only the
Early Bronze Age cairn in Söderby suggests that Bronze Age cairns might occur
within the Iron Age group R.
One site of importance for Tuovinen’s division of cairns into the groups P and R
is the Furunabb site in Houtskari (outside the present study area), consisting of 12
low cairns or stone settings (Fig. 119; Fig. 120). Tuovinen (2002a: Table 26) has used
the data on all 12 cairns, as a piece of iron gives a stratigraphic dating for one cairn
and the rest can be dated according to the cemetery chorological criterion. The
dating applied is the Early Iron Age. Earlier, the cairn complex was suggested to
date from the Migration Period (e.g. Tuovinen 1990a: 58; 1997: 20). The only metal
find is a small bent piece of iron (KM 20576:5), together with fragments of iron
and rust (KM 20576:1-4). The best-preserved piece was originally catalogued as
a fragment of an (unidentified) iron object. Later, it was recognized as a possible
belt buckle (Tuovinen 1997: 19) or as “an iron ferrule of a belt from the Early Iron
Age” (Tuovinen 2002a: 183). It is not known what the identification is based on.
The form of the iron piece gives few starting points for such an interpretation and

370
Fig. 119. Low cairns or stone settings at the Furunabb site in Houtskari.

Fig. 120. Rectangular cairn with an upright stone at the Furunabb site in Houtskari.

371
no parallel is referred to. The fragment (Fig. 121) could just as well originate from
some other object. Tuovinen’s dating of the site to the Early Iron Age (based on
both the iron fragment as well as the form of the cairns) is, however, confirmed
by results of radiocarbon datings, made in connetion with the present study. The
dates have been obtained from burned bones (KM 21157:1-3) found in three cairns
during excavations conducted by Päivi Pykälä-aho in 1981. In all three cairns the
bones have been identified as human bones, and in one case as belonging to a
child (Infans I/II).176 The dating results are 2140 ± 35 BP (Ua-33132), i.e. 360-280 or
240-50 cal BC, and (from two separate cairns) 2085 ± 35 BP (Ua-33133; Ua 33134),
i.e. 200-1 cal BC, indicating that the site most probably is from the latter half of the
Pre-Roman Iron Age.177 The dating result proves Tuovinen’s interpretation of the
Furunabb cairns as belonging to the Early Iron Age right and gives support for
the use of the attributes of the cairns as a basis for the chronological division of
cairns into the groups P and R. The dating result also underlines the fact that cairns
from both the beginning of the Iron Age as well as the Late Iron Age occur within
group R. What is still a dilemma is whether this is due to unbroken continuity also
covering those centuries of the Iron Age which are still lacking confidently dated
cairns.
In addition to cairns dated according to their features as belonging to group P
or R, one should still emphasize cairns from the archipelago dated on the basis of
archaeological finds and radiocarbon dating. Unfortunately, the number of such
datings is still small. In principle, the datings form three groups, one for the Early
Bronze Age, one for the Pre-Roman Iron Age, and one for the Late Iron Age or (more
specifically) the Viking Age (or, in a couple of cases, possibly the late Merovingian
Period). The first group is represented by the Hammarsboda and Långnäs cairns
from Dragsfjärd containing metal artefacts, as well as the radiocarbon dated cairn

176
Analysed by Margareta Backe-Högberg, according to information given by Päivi
Pykälä-aho.
177
Comparable dates have been obtained further away along the coast of the Gulf of
Finland. The closest chronological parallel to the Furunabb complex is a group of cairns
at Suursuonmäki on the island Lavansaari in the eastern part of the gulf. The dates,
obtained from resin in three excavated cairns, show that one cairn is from the Pre-
Roman Iron Age and two from the turn of the Pre-Roman and the Early Roman Iron Age
(Edgren 1993b: 18). The dating results are 2165 ± 60 BP (Ua-2547), 1975 ± 70 BP (Ua-2545)
and 1960 ± 70 BP (Ua-2546), i.e. 380-50 cal BC, 170 cal BC – 220 cal AD and 160-130 cal BC
or 120 cal BC – 230 cal AD, respectively. Roman Iron Age cairns have been excavated at
the Strukankalliot site in Pyhtää, on the shore of the Gulf of Finland. Fibulae evidence a
dating to the beginning of the Roman Iron Age, while a piece of a gold plated glass bead
indicates continuity into the Late Roman Iron Age (Miettinen, T. 1998: 96-101). After the
Roman Iron Age coastal cairn building is more difficult to evidence also on the shores
of the eastern part of the Gulf of Finland. In this area as well, the next period of cairn
building seems to be the Viking Age (Miettinen, T. 1998: 101-105).

372
in Söderby. Also the radiocarbon dated
Trollberget cairn from Houtskari
(outside the present study area)
belongs to this group. The second
group is made up of the Furunabb
cairns (outside the study area)
described above. The youngest group
of cairns consists of the Stora Ängeskär
cairn in Dragsfjärd (containing a
grinding stone), the two radiocarbon
dated cairns in Makila in Kemiö, the
radiocarbon dated stone setting at
Koupo Rösbacken in Parainen, as Fig. 121. Piece of iron (KM 20576:5) found
well as the two Sundbergen cairns together with other small iron frag­ments in
(containing a piece of a comb and iron cairn 6 at the Furunabb site in Houtskari.
Photo by Leena Tomanterä / Conservation
rivets) excavated in Nauvo (Tuovinen
Laboratory, National Mu­seum of Finland.
2002a: 88, 91). All of these are from the
Late Iron Age, the most probable period of erection being the Viking Age (or the
late Merovingian Period). To this group of cairns also the coastally situated Kokkila
cairns in Halikko (one of which containing a Late Iron Age strap divider) could be
added, albeit situated on the mainland side of the strait separating Kemiönsaari
from the mainland.
Summing up, this would mean an Early Bronze Age group of cairns consisting
of 4 cairns (one of which outside the study area), one cairn complex from the Pre-
Roman Iron Age (outside the study area), and a Late Iron Age – most probably
Viking Age – group of cairns consisting of 7 cairns or stone settings (one of which
actually situated on the mainland). Taking this meagre material into account,
Tuovinen’s (2002a) approach using also other aspects of the cairns for dating is
understandable. With regard to the identification of the groups P and R, on the
other hand, one should take into account the possibility that there is some more
complex age distribution than just consistent continuity from the Bronze Age
throughout the Iron Age. When considering the cairns dated on the basis of finds
and radiocarbon dating, it is of course surprising that no Late Bronze Age (or early
Pre-Roman) dates are available so far, but it is also notable that many of the Iron
Age cairns represent the very end of the Iron Age. This could indicate the Late
Iron Age – especially the Viking Age – as a period of increased interest in erecting
cairns. If so, instead of steady continuity of a specific grave ritual, the material
could represent cairn building periods of different age and intensity – maybe a
Bronze Age tradition starting to change and weaken during the Early Iron Age

373
(if not a different Bronze Age and an Early Iron Age phase) and a Late Iron Age
tradition flourishing in the Viking Age. The Late Iron Age cairn building fits well
with other indicia related to the increased presence in the area during this period.178
This may have led to increased symbolic representation of the connection between
man and land or landscapes by means of revitalization or copying of the old custom
of erecting cairns.179

6.6.4. Settlement expansion

Tendencies towards an increased presence in the landscape outside the central

settlement areas can be seen during the Viking Age, in the form of an increased
occurrence of stray finds, together with palynological evidence of continuous
cultivation. This development is evident in the archipelago, where proof of trading
also occurs as well as the building of cairns. Signs of expansion in the form of

178
Cairns were built during the Iron Age also in the interior of Finland, outside the area
of coastal cairns. Datings are available from several periods of the Iron Age, including
the Late Iron Age. Taavitsainen (2003a; 2003c) has discussed the inland cairns (Fi.
lapinraunio) from several angles. One interesting explanation given by him for the
small number of bones in the cairns is that people utilising far away areas might have
deposited some bones in the cairn to mark ownership, while the rest of the bones were
disposed somewhere at their home farm. This explanation – which is only one included
in Taavitsainens discussion – would thus imply that the cairns (or part of them) were
not built by the local hunter-gatherer population of the inland. One example where such
an explanation would seem possible is the inland cairn at Reuharinniemi in Tampere
radiocarbon dated to 1240 ± 80 BP (Hel-4440), i.e. 650-980 cal AD. The cairn has been
interpreted as an inhumation grave built by the local hunter-gatherer people still living
in the area which was at the time being settled by farming people (Adel 2002). Iron
Age pottery found – typical of the farming culture and usually absent in inland hunter-
gatherer contexts – could, however, suggest also other possible interpretations. A
similar case is known closer to the coast, from the Tommila Rännemäki cairn in Vehmaa.
Also here Iron Age pottery was found. The dating of the cairn is uncertain. It has been
estimated to be from the third or fourth centuries at the earliest, but more probably from
the following centuries; it might even be contemporary with the phase of establishment
of cemeteries and permanent settlement in the area in the 7th century (Pellinen 2004;
2005: 177-179).
179
A possible conscious reproduction of older grave forms has been suggested by Holmblad
(2005) regarding Ostrobothnian grave forms reminiscent of Bronze Age cairns, occurring
in the Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period. One explanation given by
Holmblad is that the monuments refer to historical myths regarding ancestors and the
claiming of land, during a period when the possession of land had to be negotiated. At
the same time this could have been due to legitimating of the social control of an upper
class by referring to its mythical past. This Ostrobothian case is, however, different from
the possible reproduction of the cairn ritual in the soutwhwestern Finnish archipelago,
as the Ostrobothnian cairn-like cemetery structures occur in the central settlement areas,
not in the periphery.

374
the same kind of cemeteries and settlement sites as on the mainland, however,
are surprisingly sparse. Within the central settlement areas on the mainland
population pressure had probably been building throughout the Iron Age, but still
at the beginning of the Late Iron Age it had led to only a relatively small increase
in the archaeological material indicative of permanent utilisation of surrounding
areas. Either the founding of new farms prior to the Viking Age must have taken
place chiefly in the form of internal colonization within the old settlement areas,
or (following the theory presented by Pihlman 2004) outlying permanent farms
existed which are still archaeologically invisible, but indicated by the distribution
of early medieval settlement interpretable from historical sources. During the Late
Iron Age – especially in the Viking Age – an increasing expansion of utilisation
and settlement is indicated, but still the old central settlement areas were the ones
where cemeteries and most other archaeological settlement indicia occur.
Trying to combine Iron Age archaeological remains with historical sources, it
seems as though the number of villages in the mainland parishes multiplied in
number in the course of a few centuries in the early Middle Ages (Oja 1955: 39;
cf. Luoto 1984a: 165; Hiltunen & Luoto 1985: 447; Salo 1995a: 25-26; 2004a: 6). One
suggested demographic reason for such a development is that the Christian church
prohibited the abandonment – i.e. the killing – of unwanted children, practised
earlier as a form of population regulation (Salo 1995a: 26-28; 2003: 28; 2004a: 6-7;
2005b: 54-55; cf. Purhonen 1998: 155). Direct historical evidence of infanticide is not
known from Finland, but in folklore the theme has such a wide distribution that it
has been interpreted as having had a place in the legal systems of Finnish people
(Pentikäinen 1990: 83). The interpretation of this as a mechanism of population
growth regulation, however, seems odd. We can ask, why there would have been
any need to regulate population growth in the first place? It is just as likely that
population growth occurred and accumulated within the old settlement areas.
Even though the early medieval expansion of settlement may seem great, it may
not have required any tremendously great population increase. A calculation
regarding the municipality of Masku (outside the present study area) suggests that
an increase of one child per generation over two hundred years would have led to
the number of people reflected by the number of early medieval villages or single
farms (Nissinaho 2002: 112, 122; 2007: 202, 207).
The idea of prohibiting infanticide as the main reason for an extremely high
population growth has been criticized also by Pihlman (2004). The criticism is
based on various grounds, ranging from ethnographical and cemetery data to the
alternative explanation of a much higher initial population during the Late Iron Age.
Within the discussion on population growth Pihlman has, for example, emphasized
the favorable climate of the Viking Age (leading to increased production), as well

375
as Scandinavian parallels for the rapid population growth. Within this discussion,
the development of agricultural techniques (e.g. Myrdal 1999) making possible the
utilisation of previously uncultivated areas to increase production, could also be
foregrounded.
Salo (2005b: 53) has given a couple of reasons why the growth of the number
of villages may not have been as rapid as suggested when comparing the number
of villages containing cemeteries with the amount of villages paying tax according
to Finnish law. First of all, the number of villages with cemeteries was probably
somewhat higher, as we do not know of all cemeteries. Secondly, according to Salo,
some pitäjä may have converted into Christianity even before the first crusade,
after which new cemeteries were no longer erected by new farms. This second
explanation is not altogether convincing. The possibility of some Late Iron Age
farms not erecting cemeteries of the type found in the old central settlement areas
seems likely, but this being due to a large-scale conversion to Christianity does
not seem possible.180 Salo (2005b: 54-55) has also maintained the idea of infanticide
as a major demographic factor, despite the criticism. Pihlman’s idea of permanent
Iron Age farms lacking cemeteries was considered, but finally rejected by Salo, as
he has regarded the idea as hypothetical and so far unattested.181 This is actually
true, if considering the archaeological data only, where the distribution of Iron Age
settlement sites generally seems to follow the distribution of cemeteries. There are,
however, other records – historical and palynological most of all – that point to the
fact that Late Iron Age utilization of land reached beyond the central settlement
areas distinguishable through the distribution of cemeteries.
The supposed explosion of new farms and villages during the early Middle
Ages is probably mostly due to the fact that the historical sources give information
on farms and utilisation areas that already existed earlier, but have remained

180
The process of adoption of Christianity and the Christian grave ritual is explained by
Salo (e.g. 2005b: 53) as happening on the level of the pitäjä, where the ancient pitäjä (Fi.
muinaispitäjä) changed into an ecclesiastical parish (Fi. kirkkopitäjä). According to Salo,
this would have involved a collective decision taken by the pitäjä court (Fi. pitäjänkäräjät).
This is rather speculative. The Christian influences more probably were slowly accepted
by individuals and small groups of people within a territory, not by the territory (or
pitäjä) as an organization. Parish formation may actually have taken place at a time
when the old Iron Age territories were already in a stage of disintegration due to new
power structures emerging.
181
Salo does not find the idea of the lack of graves convincing, but considers the possibility
of graves without grave goods, pointing out the possibility that the indigenous Finnish
coastal population would have practised such a grave ritual until the Merovingian
Period (which would make all earlier cemeteries the product of immigration) (cf. Salo
2003: 54). From this (rather strange) premise Salo could accept Pihlman’s theory, but
regarding the Late Iron Age cremation cemeteries Salo (2005b: 55) finds it doubtful that
some farms would have erected them and others not.

376
archaeologically invisible. These outlying farms may have been permanently
settled (Pihlman 2004), or people may in the expansion stage have made use
of already cleared fields, pastures and wilderness utilisation camps outside
permanently settled areas. In addition to agricultural innovations stimulating the
use of new types of soils (e.g. Hiltunen & Luoto 1985, 448; Orrman 1991; Myrdal
1999), motivating the founding of new farms, one essential reason would thus be
that in terms of areal utilisation the impression of expansion is partly an illusion.
The Late Iron Age cemeteries probably only represent old permanent farms; they
do not give the whole picture of outlying farms and semi-permanent utilisation of
remote resource areas that could be made use of when the time was right.
Historical sources give some idea of how far this type of utilisation could have
reached. The area of villages paying tax according Finnish law gives one indication
of the area of utilisation. With regard to the use of the archipelago by the mainland
parishes for hunting and fishing, this is reflected in toponyms referring to these
activities, as well as in documents mentioning ownership of fishing sites (Oja 1955:
50-52). Likewise, several documents reveal that distant pastures were still owned
by old villages far away, even after the former wilderness had been permanently
settled (Oja 1955: 52-53). For example, the fact that during the Middle Ages the
parish of Uskela (Salo) still owned land as far away as Somero (about 35 kilometres
inland) probably means that these areas were old hunting grounds, used by the
settlements of the Salo area already during the Iron Age (Hirviluoto 1991: 190).
During the Late Iron Age an increased interest in the area of Kemiönsaari can
also be seen. This is indicated above all by the palynological data, showing the
start of permanent cultivation during the Viking Age or even somewhat earlier
(Appendix 2). In addition to the dating of the Makila Majberget cairns and the small
increase of Viking Period stray finds in the archipelago, the pollen data indicates
increased Late Iron Age permanent utilisation of areas further away from the
mainland central settlement areas. How significant this was in terms of population
numbers remains unsolved. Soon after this the settlement history of Kemiönsaari
once again changed.

6.6.5. Colonization

During the early Middle Ages, Finland became part of the Swedish kingdom and
the Finnish archipelago was colonised by Swedish immigrants (Kerkkonen 1945:
251-252; Oja 1955: 77; Meinander 1983; Orrman 1983: 293-294; 1986: 21-23; Markus
2004b: 64-69; Kepsu 2005). This process of colonization is archaeologically even less
well known than the Iron Age utilisation of the archipelago. No medieval village in

377
the archipelago within the study area has as yet been the target of any comprehensive
archaeological investigation (a fact that actually is more in line with the idea of lack
of archaeological investigations of the archipelago than the lack of investigations
concerning prehistoric sites).182 Historical sources directly related to the process of
colonization are also lacking. Some information on settlement development can,
however, be extracted from tax records. Many villages – both on the mainland and
in the archipelago – must evidently have been founded in the late 13th or early 14th
century, but not much later (Oja 1955: 69; Orrman 1986: 35; 1990a: 230-231). Late
medieval immigration has not been regarded as considerable. One break in the
development may have been the plague, which affected Sweden during the 1340’s;
this may have had the effect of reducing population pressure and decreasing the
need for new land (Meinander 1983: 243; Pitkänen 1994: 29; Myrdal 1999: 116).
According to this view, it was during the period from the end of the Iron Age to the
14th century that Swedish immigration led to the formation of relationships between
the two ethnic groups in the southwestern Finnish archipelago.183 One precondition
for immigration must have been that the areas taken over by the immigrants were
familiar already prior to the decision to migrate. Apart from pressure in the original
home area there must also have been attracting ‘pull’ factors, above all knowledge
of the area of destination (Orrman 1990a: 198-199; cf. Anthony 1990). Some contacts
must have been established already prior to colonization.

182
The potential of studies within villages are indicated by finds of probably medieval
stoneware at the village Rosala in the Hiittinen archipelago in Dragsfjärd, as well as
Siegburg pottery and a fragment of a medieval horseshoe (Sw. fliksko) from Malmen
in Parainen. From the latter site there is also an axe, the shaft fragment of which is
radiocarbon dated to the 13th century. These are, however, sporadic finds. Excavations
at some villages sites in Uusimaa, (Palm & Pellinen 2002; Jansson 2004; 2005: 68-69;
Haggrén 2005b; Haggrén et al. 2007; Pellinen 2007), as well as studies of the Estonian
Swedish village Einbi (Markus 2002; 2004b) are at present the best examples of studies
of villages related to the time of medieval Swedish colonization east of the Baltic.
183
This is comparable to the current view on the colonization of the coast of the province
of Uusimaa, which has most recently been discussed by Kepsu (2005). According to
him, this area was for most part without permanent settlement during longer or shorter
periods of the Iron Age AD; the area was utilized by people from Finland Proper as well
as Häme and possibly also by Estonians (Kepsu 2005: 58). In the western part of the
province (e.g. Tenhola and Karjaa) settlement continued during most of the Iron Age,
while permanent settlement in other areas was discontinuous or nonexistent. Within
some parts of the province settlement seem to have increased already during the 9th
and 10th centuries; generally the increase came about from the 11th to the 13th centuries
at the latest. According to onomastic studies, the first settlers in several areas were
Finnish speaking, coming from the eastern part of Finland Proper (especially the area
of the Halikko Bay and Perniö) as well as from Häme (Kepsu 2005: 58-59). The Swedish
immigration at first was directed towards the same areas already settled by Finns; this
was probably due to the fact that these areas were the most suitable for agriculture
(Kepsu 2005: 59-61). Later also previously unsettled or peripheral areas were settled by
Swedes.

378
 It is also important to realise that colonization led to real contacts between
different groups of people. In some cases these encounters probably led to conflict,
in others to permanent connections and coexistence.184 Information exchange
between different groups can be seen in the use of old Finnish toponyms by the
Swedish speaking population (Pitkänen 1985; 1990). How these names were
transferred is not known exactly. It is an open question whether immigrants settled
in the unexploited wilderness, took over seasonal camps previously utilised by
the mainland population, or settled in areas where there was already some kind
of permanent settlement.185 Onomastic studies suggest that there are several
layers of Finnish loan words in the archipelago, created during different periods.
According to studies of Finnish place-names in relation to shoreline displacement
by Pitkänen (1985; 1990) it seems that over half of the "datable" place-names could
have originated in the early 12th century or during previous centuries. The dating of
place-names is, of course, highly risky, but an identifiable horizon of Finnish Late
Iron Age toponyms would match the increase in activity in the archipelago during
this period suggested by the archaeological material.

184
The way in which relationships between people in the Middle Ages were experienced
with regard to the languages spoken may have differed from that of recent times. It
was not before the general process of nation-state-building in Europe during the late
19th and early 20th centuries that ideas of nationalities really became important. It was
then the concept of two nationalities – Finns and Swedes – appeared in Finland. Before
that, the belief had been that there were two languages and two different temperaments
formed by life in the forest and along the coast respectively, but they had been viewed
as constituting one and the same people, in one homeland (Markus 2004a: 61-62;
2004b: 54-55). Before the end of the 19th century there were no real bonds or a common
identity uniting different districts where Swedish was spoken. Designations related to
nationality were diffuse – the term Finn could be used for all inhabitants, irrespective of
the language spoken.
185
The process of Swedish immigration to the archipelago of Finland Proper has more
recently been discussed by the historian Mauno Jokipii (2003: 320-326). Jokipii has given
a summary from various angles, regarding, for example, a possible settlement break of
the Åland Islands about 1000-1200, onomastic materials related to the settling of different
parts of the archipelago, the dating of the events, as well as regarding some relevant
archaeological sites in the archipelago. Unfortunately the archaeological data is treated
in a rather confusing manner. One gets the impression that sites such as Hamnö on the
island of Kökar in the Åland archipelago, Kapelludden in Parainen and the Kyrksundet /
Högholmen complex in Dragsfjärd would have been some kind of political and military
bases providing safety during the Swedish settling of the area (Jokipii 2003: 322-324).
If this is the intention the interpretation is not convincing – at least regarding the sites
within the present study area. Kapelludden (where one inhumation grave has been
detected within a stone fenced area) is most probably a Chapel site – nothing more. The
same probably goes for the Kyrksundet site too, even if there was an earlier trading place
at the same spot. Högholmen, on the other hand, contains material evidently related to
some kind of permanently occupied base, but the dating to the mid 14th century is too
late to be related to the main period of immigration.

379
 A common interpretation of the Finnish loanwords is that some kind of
Finnish settlement already existed in the archipelago when immigration started
(Pitkänen 1990: 166, 188-189; cf. Suistoranta 1985: 6-9; Orrman 1990a: 222-223).
How comprehensive and permanent such a settlement might have been, however,
cannot be deduced from the onomastic material. The amount of Finnish toponyms
in the archipelago area is quite small in number. For example, in Parainen the total
number of place-names is over 4,700 and only about 130 (ca. 2.7 %) are undoubtedly
of Finnish origin; the percentage is about the same in the municipalities nearby
(Pitkänen 2003: 278). The share of Finnish toponyms is even smaller on Kemiönsaari
– here the percentage is only 0.2 %. In addition to the mean, also the distribution
of toponyms is of importance. Even if the number of names cannot be regarded as
directly representative of the amount of Finnish presence in the area, it has been
interpreted that the cluster of Finnish toponyms in Parainen – especially in the Ålö
area – must be related to an early Finnish presence (Pitkänen 2003: 278, 281-282). It
has also been pointed out that almost half of the names of villages in Parainen have
a Finnish origin (Pitkänen 2003: 280). At the time of immigration of the Swedish-
speaking population there must have been a permanent Finnish population in
the area. According to Pitkänen (2003: 282-283), the area may have had a dualistic
language base for some time, but gradually the Finns adopted the language of the
Swedish majority; still in 1600th century documents, however, some people living
in the area were specifically referred to as Finns.
Place-names have since long been regarded as indicia for ancient Finnish
settlement on Kemiönsaari too. Already in the 1930’s Oja (1933: 183), for example,
pointed out that some of the old place-names like Purinpä, Weskilax, Maijnem,
Rottzall and Kaxkertta possibly indicated Finnish settlement. Finnish toponyms
are obvious also in several areas referred to in the course of this study. In addition
to the village Makila, addressed earlier, some other areas of interest from an
archaeological point of view display place-names of Finnish origin. For example,
the Pre-Roman settlement site identified in Västanfjärd is situated in the village
of Tappo, and the name of the neighbouring village is Nivelax – both of Finnish
origin.186 Likewise, the pollen sample site Ilsokärret in the northern part of the
island, where continuous Late Iron Age cultivation has been identified, is situated

186
The name Nivelax has the Finnish suffix -laksi, with the meaning ”bay”; the first part
of the name is not clear, but has been suggested to be the Finnish word niva, meaning
a narrow stream (Gardberg 1944: 13; Huldén 2001: 141). Tappo (1540; Tappå 1543), on
the other hand, occurs in several Finnish place-names and has the meaning ”hop yard”
(Huldén 2001: 142).

380
close to villages with a name of Finnish origin, i.e. Rugnola and Kalkila.187 The
northernmost part of Kemiönsaari (where also the only villages paying medieval
tax according to ‘Finnish law’ are situated) actually shows a cluster of Finnish place-
names (Pitkänen 1985; cf. Asplund & Vuorela 1989; Tikkanen & Westerholm 1992).
The Finnish presence both on Kemiönsaari and in other parts of the archipelago
thus is evident. How consistent and powerful the Finnish settlement would have
been in the early Middle Ages is, however, not known. The suggestion by Oja
(1955: 78-79), according to which the parishes of Nauvo, Parainen and Kemiö
could have formed some kind of units already during the Finnish settlement stage,
remains unattested. The sparse Iron Age archaeological material, on the contrary,
suggests that no significant Finnish settlement comparable to that of the mainland
did develop in the archipelago prior to the Swedish colonization. The lack of firmly
established Finnish settlement must in fact have been one reason for the success of
the colonization.

187
The origin of the village-name Rugnola (Ruggnaall 1442; Ruggenole 1505, Ruggenåla
1536; Ruggenol 1540; Ryggebynol 1545; Rugnoll 1581) has not been explained; the
suffix -la, common for Finnish place-names related to settlement might suggest that
it is of Finnish origin (Gardberg 1944: 14; Huldén 2001: 137). The village-name Kalkila
has been compared with the Finnish name Kalkkila found in for example Halikko; the
village in Halikko could be the mother-village of the one in Kemiö (Huldén 2001: 134;
cf. Gardberg 1944: 19).

381
382
7. Sites, centrality and long-term settlement change -
some conclusions

7.1. Landscapes and archaeological sites

The fact that this study has dealt with the island of Kemiönsaari does not in
itself necessitate a dualistic approach, based on the dichotomy of archipelago vs.
mainland. Nevertheless, this seems to be the clearest way of approaching settlement
development within the study area. Throughout the whole Neolithic and Bronze
Age, such a mainland/archipelago distinction is irrelevant. During the following
period, on the other hand, it is obvious: for several centuries of the Iron Age
confidently dated antiquities are sparse in the archipelago, Kemiönsaari included.
During the Historical Period, settlement density in the archipelago again reached
a level comparable to that of the mainland. The differences in archaeological
finds during the Iron Age must be explained as a difference in the settlement and
organizational history of the areas. A lack of finds does not necessarily mean a lack
of habitation, but it does mean at least a difference in the use of material culture,
probably also differences in settlement densities. Considering the main categories
of Iron Age antiquities, the difference can be thought of as concerning in particular
the use of material culture in ritual contexts and social strategies.
It is an oversimplification to point to dissimilar environments as the main or
only reason for the differences reflected by the archaeological data. This pattern
is the result of a long-term process of several intertwined factors. Many of these
have been dealt with in previous research, the increased importance of agriculture
being stressed as most important. This is partly true: the introduction of farming
during the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age produced transformations that laid the
foundation for change. The Neolithic economy must have had a large impact – not
necessarily on the level of subsistence and technology alone, but by stimulating
changes leading to greater social complexity. As the Kemiönsaari study indicates,
this may in turn have led to changes, with the result that the development of
remote environments, albeit suitable for agriculture, differed from developing
central settlement areas. This suggests a process of change that did not concern
the archipelago alone (the Kemiönsaari island is actually not very archipelagic),
although most visible there, but could have affected other landscapes as well.
In the introduction to this study, the landscape was described (in addition to
its properties as a physical environment) as a conceptualised space. During the
Bronze Age, attitudes towards landscapes changed; this is manifested in cairns, the
building of which probably strengthened the bond between the builders and the

383
place of construction as well as the surrounding landscape. The bones of ancestors
deposited in the cairns were part of a complex ritual, in which these monuments
came to symbolise contact between communities and territories as well as between
the real world and beyond.
During the Early Iron Age – the starting point of rupture in the settlement
history of the study area – the old distribution of settlement areas deriving from
the Neolithic can still be seen. A western area, comprising the Piikkiönlahti and
Paimionlahti area, is still distinguishable, as is the area of Halikonlahti in the east
and that of Kemiönsaari in the south. What may be indicative of a change is that the
Kemiönsaari sites are not situated in the southernmost part of the island as before,
but further inland along long, narrow bays, or straits. No indications of settlement
sites have so far been found in the rest of the archipelago. What was probably
happening during this time is that the sites were related to agriculture more than
before and that their location was determined to a greater degree by the demands
of a farming economy. This idea gains support from the archaeological case
studies, osteological analyses as well as environmental studies related to shoreline
displacement effects, agrogeology and palynology within the Kemiönsaari area.
Cairns were most probably built during the Pre-Roman Iron Age in larger
number than has been identified. From a few sites (outside the study area)
Early Iron Age cairns are known in archipelago contexts. Still, what should be
considered significant, is that few cairns dated to this period have been found in
a position comparable to the Bronze Age cairns in rocky landscapes, often remote
from settlement sites. This suggests that the cairn as a symbol of contact between
land and people was moving closer to the settlement sites. The combination of
settlement, cleared fields and the place of the dead ancestors was emerging as the
sphere in relation to which Iron Age people defined their place in the world. The
bond between people and landscapes was probably experienced most powerfully
in relation to the home farm and the collective rituals of the community. This is
related to the territorial shaping of an areal (regional) identity through recognition of
natural geographical borders or the borders of the cultural landscape. In addition to
borders also centres – the farm, a river or river valley, the core of the settlement zone
or microregion – must have been important for the experiencing of areal identity.
Icons of the symbolic shaping of areal identity could have been the family shrine,
places for common rituals etc. Outside the main settlement areas the connection
between man and nature was probably different. The wilderness could not be
utilised in a routine manner – forest, land and water had a mythological content
and had to be dealt with using rituals of different kinds. Single find distributions
and even peripheral cairns – especially during the Late Iron Age – may equally well
relate to the ritualised landscape as to settlement or economic activities directly.

384
 With regard to the dating of archipelagic cairns, one should take into account
the possibility that there is a more complex age distribution than just consistent
continuity from the Bronze Age throughout the Iron Age, as has been previously
suggested. When considering the cairns dated on the basis of finds and radiocarbon
dating, it is notable that many of the Iron Age cairns represent the very end of the
Iron Age. This could indicate the Late Iron Age – especially the Viking Age – as a
period of increased interest in erecting cairns. If so, instead of steady continuity of a
specific grave ritual, the material could represent cairn building periods of different
age and intensity – maybe a Bronze Age tradition starting to weaken during the
Early Iron Age and a Late Iron Age tradition flourishing in the Viking Age. The
Late Iron Age cairn building fits well with other indicia – palynological evidence of
continuous cultivation and a small increase in the number of stray finds – related
to the increased presence in the area during this period (especially the Viking Age).
This may have led to increased symbolic representation of the connection between
man and land or landscapes by means of revitalization or copying of the old custom
of erecting cairns.

7.2. Power and centrality

Comparing trends in the general Early Iron Age debate with a range of themes
relating to the Finnish Early Iron Age offers a framework for understanding this
specific period within the study area. The Pre-Roman Iron Age coincides roughly
with certain important stages of cultural and environmental development, including
the introduction of iron, the final breakthrough of agriculture and husbandry, an
economic devolution with regard to trade networks in northern Europe, as well as
climate fluctuations. If these factors had played a direct role in the changes in the
archaeological material, the change would probably have happened even earlier.
More interesting is the new incorporation of northern Europe into long-distance
trade networks during the late Pre-Roman Iron Age, which could perhaps have
affected southwestern Finland as well, becoming visible especially in the Roman
Period. The final discussion, however, turns towards a consideration of internal
factors as initiators of change.
Since the Late Neolithic, developments within subsistence, technology and
foreign contacts had increased the need for new forms of organization and control
within society. This development probably started to accelerate in the Early Iron
Age, leading to new systems of cooperation and decision-making. In a more
sedentary society, more based on farming and more vulnerable than before,
more attention was paid to increasing the predictability of subsistence, security

385
and defensive strength. This could have had a major impact on where and how
people chose to settle and on the way some settlement areas would develop and
others simply tick along or decline. This is reflected in the archaeological material,
indicating a symbolic shaping of areas (in the form of specific grave rituals and the
making of cup-marked stones in some microregions), which probably at the same
time reflects an institutionalisation of these areal units. This is suggested by the
constancy of the pattern of settlement archaeological remains, which prevailed for
centuries.
Already before the Iron Age central settlement areas become visible, early hill-
sites within the study area could have been related to emerging new socio-political
relations. One would like to think of these sites as points of contact or places of
symbolic function, rather than fortifications or fortified settlements. Thinking in these
terms, the hill-sites are not necessarily power centres, but they accentuate places in
the landscape probably recognized and experienced on some level of identity and
unity of the people living in the area. The appearance of such places only within
the mainland part of the study area may be indicative of a divergence between
mainland and archipelago areas, characterized on the mainland by the emergence
of more formal and centralized features of social or ritual communication.
An important concept explored in this study, related to the hypothetical trend
towards social and political complexity, is power. It is important to note that power
is not purely negative or suppressive, that it does not necessarily involve force,
and that in societal contexts power relationships do not exist only in connection
with highly stratified societies or large populations. In the case of a presumed total
population of a few hundred people within the study area during the Early Iron
Age (growing into a few thousand people in the Late Iron Age), power meant power
relationships between individuals, families, kinship groups, farmsteads and – as
proposed in this study – territories forming in the river valleys on the mainland.
The most interesting approach to power is the totalistic one, where power is
seen as a dimension present in all human relations. This approach is based on
the assumption that all cultures contain some form of hierarchy or control over
decision-making, and thus inequality of power. It is also important that power
and inequality are related to individual qualities. A degree of inequality in terms,
for example, of gender, age or ability exists in the most egalitarian systems, as do
personal differences in ambition, charisma and skills. Inequality is thus ubiquitous,
since all individuals and groups exercise power and are subject to its exercise.
The forming of institutions related to inequalities in economic and political
power actually seems to be a question above all of personal ambition and relations
formed between a leader and his supporters, as well as their relations with people
outside their alliance. Anthropological evidence suggests that such groups form

386
because members of the group receive benefits and rewards for their support.
In ranked societies (implying heterogeneity and status definition, but excluding
control of access to resources) the main manifestation of the relationship between
a leader and his supporters is redistribution, for example in the form of occasional
feasts. For the supporters the returns from such a system may be symbolic, but a
group with this pattern may have the advantage of increased security in several
aspects of life, such as buffering in periods of poor harvest and defensive power
(including a better preparedness for combat) in periods of aggression. Surplus and
redistribution may also be invested in the conversion of potential aggressors into
potential allies.
It seems plausible that, starting with the Early Iron Age, the pattern of settlement
began to be transformed from a system emphasising population mobility and
dispersion into one focusing on centralisation, increased predictability, security
and power. Even if the decisions leading to this transformation were the results
of a long-term process, there must have been contemporary stimuli for change,
suggesting that earlier conditions or behaviour were inadequate and thus leading
to attempts to cope with the new situation. One point made in this study is that –
regardless of long-term processes – final decisions are made due to high-frequency
variability of environmental or cultural change. During the Early Iron Age situations
arose which led to the increased investment in some settlement areas and the loss
of relative importance of others.

7.3. The power of nature versus the nature of power

The question of causality remains. One problem is that the archaeological data offers
a way of measuring change, rather than an explanation of the causes of change. The
interpretation of the archaeological data in a context of environmental variables
offers additional information, but the process of interpretation is still complicated.
Archaeological and palaeoecological data do not represent prehistoric thoughts,
actions and strategies directly but through their outcome. In a way this whole
study has actually been related to the question of which is more important: physical
environment and technology, or psychological and socio-political behaviour. This
question is one that cannot be answered; it is impossible to assign relative weights
to variables and their relationships with sufficient precision to identify causation.
What this study has aimed at showing, however, is that there is more to the question
of Iron Age settlement development in southwestern Finland than environmental
variables, technology and subsistence.

387
 This conclusion does not fully support one of the basic hypotheses of the
archaeological debate concerning settlement in southwestern Finland, according
to which the areal settlement structure, settlement intensity and settlement change
were due to economic factors; in other words, that the settlement process would
predominantly represent trends of economic development. This is, of course, related
to how broadly we define the concept of ‘economy’. Socio-political change can be
closely related to economy – changes are initiated due to attempts at stabilisation,
improvement or control of the economy. In the case of southwestern Finland – if we
apply the ideas of this study – it was not solely environmental and technical aspects
of the economy that brought about changes in areal settlement structure, but also
conceptions of how society functions and of how people should act in relation to
each other and in relation to the most powerful settlement areas.
One conclusion arrived at concerns the impact of the Early Iron Age process on
the mainland, whereby a structure evolved, based on both natural geographical
regions as well as socio-political territories, probably encompassing one river-
valley microregion each. This led to a settlement pattern recognizable from the
Late Roman Iron Age to the Late Iron Age. The settlement areas of the Roman
Iron Age are still more or less discernible in the Late Iron Age, and there are no
additional microregions with clusters of Iron Age remains. If this pattern reflects
socio-political units, it indicates a continuity of socio-political organization from the
Late Roman Iron Age to the Late Iron Age. This does not exclude instability within
the microregions – this is actually suggested by the discontinuities and changes of
relative wealth of single cemeteries as well as settlement areas throughout the Iron
Age.
If this general idea is acceptable, the roots of the organization of territories go
far back. The territory would thus be the next primitive settlement unit discernible
after the single farm, while village formation would represent a later stage of
organization discernible during the Late Iron Age or the Middle Ages. The process
to formation of a territory is suggested to have been increased cooperation or
interdependence between households within a region, and formalisation of rules for
information exchange, leadership and obligations. Such constellations, comparable
to the Estonian vakus units, must have already formed during prehistory in
southwestern Finland. Although a territory might not have been a geographically
strictly defined area, socially well-organized community or politically rigorously
administered unit, a general sense of belonging to a community larger than the
home farm must have existed. The essence of the territory was the information
and collaboration network constituted by the farms within a natural-geographical
region, the operation of which through time became formalized.

388
 There is reason to assume that within the territorial units of the Iron Age, farms
may have participated in a common cult or redistributive system, the symbolic
returns of which were distributed in the form of feasting (Fi. pidot). This leads into
a discussion on the possibility of territorial units being analogous with the pitäjä,
i.e. whether they already then would have been referred to as a pitäjä, a term that
later became analogous with the parish. If the idea and concept of a territory in
a size somewhat comparable to that of a parish had not existed in Finland when
ecclesiastical parishes were formed due to efforts of the western Church, one would
have expected the use of some variant of the Swedish word for parish – sokn, socken.
The pitäjä could thus be a territorial or organizational term older than the formation
of the ecclesiastical parishes. As an existing and understandable configuration it was
later referred to during the introduction of ecclesiastical and secular organization
and taxation. The indigenous name of a system of cooperation was transferred into
new use. According to this view, the introduction of the parish institution did not
mean the forming of the system of the Finnish pitäjä, but the end of it.
It must be admitted, however, that in comparison with the vakus units, the
material signifying the forming of pitäjä territories is more vague. No explicit
borders of pitäjä units can be drawn other than on natural-geographical grounds,
and no historical material like the Liber Census Daniae can be used to connect a
historical division of land with the hypothetical Iron Age territories. This must be
understood and taken into account when evaluating the discussion related to the
pitäjä concept. If, however, acknowledging a formation of territories during the
Iron Age and equating them with pitäjä units, the idea of the formation of territories
presented in this book does not fully support earlier hypotheses suggesting that the
prehistoric pitäjä was not an organizational unit, but based above all on common
aims and spontaneous cooperation between people. Even less does it support ideas
of the pitäjä being only a religious unit, or one that was activated in connection with
external taxation. The view arrived at in this study is that territories formed due to
internal development, involving ideas of both cooperation and competition.
Competition, however, does not exclude partnership. On the contrary, in addition
to kinship ties, the relative status and power of the settlement areas must have
been crucial in negotiations related to alliances. For example, wealth in the form of
imported objects came mainly from outside the study area, but were exchanged and
used symbolically in cemeteries not due to external influences or only in relation
to a periphery, but in the competition and forming of relationships between local
chifs and equal units of organization within the area. Displayed wealth, power and
status, co-related with the possibility of providing security as well as other real and
symbolic profits for the population, maintained the credibility of the organization.
If such a scenario is acceptable, the dynamics of development in the area during the

389
Iron Age could have been to a great extent dependent on the interplay between the
central settlement areas that started to form during the Early Iron Age.
This process is suggested to have been one important factor in the settlement
development of Kemiönsaari. When territories developed on the mainland,
Kemiönsaari became marginalized. This view does not support earlier efforts of
interpreting the archipelago as an important settlement zone throughout the Iron
Age, settled by a specific archipelago population. Neither does it support the view
of an economic barter system between the islanders and the mainland population.
Rather we could be dealing with one population, the settlement density of which
was highest in the mainland river valleys, while the archipelago remained an
outlying but important zone of utilization.
As stated above, the interest in a more active presence in the landscape outside
the central settlement areas increased during the Late Iron Age. This development
is evident in the archipelago, where proof of trading occurs as well as evidence of
continuous cultivation and the building of cairns. Within the central settlement
areas on the mainland, population pressure had probably been building throughout
the Iron Age, but still in the beginning of the Late Iron Age it had led to only a
relatively small increase in the archaeological material indicative of permanent
utilisation of surrounding areas. Either the founding of new farms prior to the
Viking Age (or the late Merovingian Period) must have taken place chiefly in
the form of internal colonization within the old settlement areas, or there existed
outlying permanent farms, which are still archaeologically invisible. In the Viking
Age especially an increasing expansion of utilisation and settlement is indicated,
but still the old central settlement areas were the ones where cemeteries and most
other archaeological settlement indicia occur. It was not before a new religious and
political system began to be established at the turn of the Iron Age and the Middle
Ages that the importance of the old territories finally seem to diminish or change
into other types of organizations. In combination with a process of immigration, the
outcome was that whole new settlement regions developed in former peripheries
like Kemiönsaari, now occurring in the written form Kymittæ. At that time, the
original scheme of the Iron Age territories, promoting central settlement areas and
ritual sites, had finally broken up.

390
Abbreviations
AI Tallinna Ülikooli Ajaloo Instituut (Institute of History, Tallinn
University), Tallinn.
Est. Estonian
Fi. Finnish
Ge. German
KM Kansallismuseo (Finnish National Museum), Helsinki.
KM hist. Kansallismuseo, historian kokoelma (Finnish National Museum,
history collection), Helsinki.
KM kt Kansallismuseo, kansatieteen kokoelma (Finnish National
Museum, ethnology collection), Helsinki.
LVM Latvijas Vēstures Muzejs (The History Museum of Latvia), Riga
SHM Statens Historiska Museum (The Museum of National Antiquities
in Sweden), Stockholm.
SM Saaremaa Muuseum (Saaremaa Museum), Kuressaare.
Sw. Swedish
TMM Turun maakuntamuseo (Turku Provincial Museum), Turku.
TYA Turun yliopisto, Arkeologia (University of Turku, Department of
Archaeology), Turku.

391
References

Unpublished sources

Asplund, Henrik 2001a. Landscapes, power and coerced decisions. A study on Iron Age archipelago and
mainland from the perspective of the Kemiönsaari area in SW Finland. Lisensiaatintutkimus. Turun
yliopisto. Kulttuurien tutkimuksen laitos / Arkeologia.
Ikäheimo, Markku 1982. Rautakauden asutus Piikkiön ja Paimion pitäjissä. Pro gradu -tutkielma. Turun
yliopisto. Kulttuurien tutkimuksen laitos / Suomalainen ja vertaileva arkeologia.
Laine, Jussi 2003. Turun ja lähialueiden keskiaikainen raskasmetallikuormitus. Pro gradu -tutkielma. Turun
yliopisto. Geologian laitos / Maaperägeologia.
Mikkola, Esa 1996. Halikon ja Salon rautakautinen asutus. Sijoittuminen, paikanvalinta ja luonnon­ympäristö.
Pro gradu -tutkielma. Helsingin yliopisto. Arkeologian laitos.
Okkonen, Jari 1998. Muinaiset kivirakennelmat Keski- ja Pohjois-Pojanmaalla. Oulun yliopisto. Taide-
aineiden ja antropologian laitos. Yleisen arkeologian lisensiaatintutkimus.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1994. Rannikkoarkeologisia tutkielmia Turunmaan saariston metallikaudesta (1500 BC -
AD 1200), erityisesti hautaraunioista. Lisensiaatintutkimus. Turun yliopisto. Kulttuurien tutki­
muksen laitos / Suomalainen ja vertaileva arkeologia.

Literature

Aalto, M. 1982. Archaeobotanical studies at Katajamäki, Isokylä, Salo, South-West Finland. In: Second
Nordic conference on the application of scientific methods in archaeology. Pact 7: 137-147.
Aario, Leo (ed.) 1960. Atlas of Finland. The Geographical Society of Finland / Department of Geo­
graphy, Helsinki University. Helsinki.
Aarnio, B. 1924. Paimion pitäjä. Agrogeologisia karttoja N:o 4. Suomen geologinen komissioni. Helsinki.
Aarnio, B. 1935. Salo I. Agrogeologisia karttoja N:o 8. Maatalouskoelaitoksen maatutkimusosasto. Helsinki.
Aarnio, B. 1936. Salo II. Agrogeologisia karttoja N:o 9. Maatalouskoelaitoksen maatutkimusosasto. Helsinki.
Aarnio, B. 1937. Salo III. Agrogeologisia karttoja N:o 10. Maatalouskoelaitoksen maatutkimusosasto.
Helsinki.
Aarnio, B. 1938. Salo IV. Agrogeologisia karttoja N:o 11. Maatalouskoelaitoksen maatutkimusosasto.
Helsinki.
Adel, Vadim 2002. Tampereen Reuharinniemen lapinraunion tutkimukset. Muinaistutkija 1/2002: 2-11.
Ahlberg, Hugo 1998. Strörön från Holmo. Pargas hembygdsförenings publikationer 13.
Ailio, Julius 1909. Die steinzeitlichen Wohnplatzfunde in Finland I-II. Helsingfors.
Ailio, Julius 1917. Hämeen linnan esi- ja rakennushistoria. Hämeenlinnan kaupungin historia I osa.
Hämeenlinna.
Ailio, Julius 1931. Tampereen seudun muinaiset vaiheet. In: Kolmannet musopäivät Tampereella. Suomen
Museoliiton julkaisuja 3: 35-49.
Alenius, Teija, Haggrén, Georg, Jansson, Henrik & Miettinen, Arto 2004. Ulkosaariston asutuksesta
autiokyläksi – Inkoon Ors poikkitieteellisenä tutkimuskohteena. SKAS 1/2004: 4-19.
Alhonen, Pentti 1965. C14-Datierung der vorgeschichtlichen Schlittenkufe aus Kullaa in Satakunta
(Westfinnland). Suomen Museo LXXII: 16-21.

392
Alhonen, Pentti 1967. Das Radiokarbonalter der Schlittenkufe aus Noormarkku in Satakunta (West-
finnland). Suomen Museo 1967: 46-53.
Alhonen, Pentti 1970. En pollenanalytisk undersökning vid stenåldersboplatsen Perkiö i Hauho sock-
en, Södra Finland. In: Edgren, Torsten, Studier över den snörkeramiska kulturens keramik i Finland.
Bilaga 3. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 72: 113-118.
Alhonen, Pentti 1978. Appendix: Diatoms in the cores from the lakes Alasenjärvi and Joutjärvi: a contri-
bution to the study of cultural eutrophication. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland 50: 45-57.
Alifrosti, Kari 1990. Ruotsin aika n. 1200-1808. Sauvon historia I: 69-397.
Alifrosti, Kari 2003. Veronmaksun ikeeseen – kohtuutta vai riistoa. In: Kaitanen, Veijo, Laukkanen,
Esa & Uotila, Kari (eds.), Muinainen Kalanti ja sen naapurit. Talonpojan maailma rautakaudelta keski­
ajalle. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 825. Hämeenlinna: 214-221.
Ambrosiani, Björn 1958. Darsgärdekomplexet. En preliminär rapport. Fornvännen: 161-176.
Ambrosiani, Björn 1959. Keramikboplatsen på Hamnbrinken vid Darsgärde. Tor Vol. V: 108-128.
Ambrosiani, Björn 1964. Fornlämningar och bebyggelse. Studier i Attundalands och Södertörns förhistoria.
Uppsala.
Ambrosiani, Björn 1973. Gravbegreppet i grävningsstatistiken. Tor Vol. XV 1972-1973: 122-136.
Ambrosiani, Björn 1985. Das Mälargebiet und Baltikum während der Spätbronzezeit und der älteren
Eisenzeit. In: Loit, Aleksander & Selirand, Jüri (eds.), Die Verbindungen zwischen Skandinavien und
Ostbaltikum aufgrund der archäologischen Quellenmaterialen. I. Symposium der sowjetestnischen und
schwedischen Archäologen. Tallinn 12.-15. Oktober 1982. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studia
Baltica Stockholmiensia 1: 61-66.
Ambrosiani, Björn 1987. Bebyggelsearkeologins grunder och framväxt. In: Petré, Bo (ed.), Bebyggelse­
arkeologiska exempel. Mälarområdet Skåne Östergötland. Rapport från en föreläsningsserie våren 1986.
Arkeologiska rapporter och meddelanden från institutionen för arkeologi vid Stockholms uni-
versitet. Nr 19: 7-10.
Aminoff-Winberg, Johanna 2001. Nagu sockens historia II. Åbo.
Andrzejowski, Jacek 1998. Nadkole 2. A Cemetery of the Przeworsk Culture in Eastern Poland. Monumen-
ta Archaeologica Barbarica. Tomus V.
Anthony, David W. 1990. Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American Anthro­
pologist 92: 895-914.
Appelgren, Hjalmar 1891. Suomen muinaislinnat. Tutkimus vertailevan muinaistieteen alalta. Suomen
Muinaismuisto-yhdistyksen Aikakauskirja XII.
Arnold, Bettina 1999. ‘Drinking the Feast’: Alcohol and the Legitimation of Power in Celtic Europe.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9:1: 71-93.
Arnold, Bettina 2001. The limits of agency in the analysis of elite Iron Age Celtic burials. Journal of So­
cial Archaeology Vol 1(2): 210-224.
Artelius, Tore 1989. Källkritiska problem vid bebyggelsearkeologiska studier. In: Bosättningsmönster.
Kontaktstencil 30-31: 19-42.
Aspelin, J. R. 1885. Suomen asukkaat pakanuuden aikana. Helsinki.
Asplund, Henrik 1985. The archaeological inventory work in Spurila, Paimio compared with results
obtained by phosphate analysis in the same area. Iskos 5: 466-471.
Asplund, Henrik 1988. Bussila – asutusarkeologinen tutkimuskohde Piikkiön Hepojokilaaksossa. In:
Korkeakoski-Väisänen, Kristiina, Lähdesmäki, Ulla, Nissinaho, Aino, Pihlman, Sirkku & Tuovi­
nen, Tapani (eds.), Baskerilinja. Unto Salo 60 vuotta. Vammala: 31-41.
Asplund, Henrik 1990. Förhistoriska kulturspår i Kimitobygden. Skärgård 3/1990: 24-32.
Asplund, Henrik 1995. Radiocarbon dating of Jäkärlä Ceramics – a comment on Comb Ceramic chro-
nology and typology. Karhunhammas 16: 69-75.

393
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Uutta tietoa keskiajan satamista. SKAS 1/1996: 5-9.
Asplund, Henrik 1997a. Niuskalan Polttolaitoksenkadun keramiikka. Näkökulma Turun seudun var-
haismetallikauteen. In: Kostet, Juhani (ed.), Arkeologisia tutkimuksia Varsinais-Suomessa 1980-
­lu­vulla. Turun maakuntamuseo. Monisteita 9: 23-50.
Asplund, Henrik 1997b. Kemiön suurpitäjän esihistoria. In: Suistoranta, Kari & Asplund, Henrik,
Kemiön suurpitäjän historia I. Tammisaari: 213-282.
Asplund, Henrik 1999. The identity and frontline of archaeology – mixed notes from a BSAAN se­mi­­
nar. Muinaistutkija 4/1999: 40-49.
Asplund, Henrik 2000. Tid, människor och landskap. En bok om arkeologi i Pargas. Pargas hembygds­före­
nings publikation 15.
Asplund, Henrik 2001b. Krouvi vai paja? Pari ajatusta Dragsfjärdin Krogaruddenin satama-alueen
funktiosta. SKAS 3/2001: 25-28.
Asplund, Henrik 2002. Houses or huts? Early Iron Age building remains in SW Finland. In: Ranta,
Helena (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age buildings in Finland. National Board
of Antiquities. Jyväskylä: 227-233.
Asplund, Henrik 2003. Rikalan Linnamäen maaperäkemialliset tutkimukset. Hakastarolainen 36: 34-37.
Asplund, Henrik 2004. Problems of Pre-Roman Iron Age radiocarbon dating – an example from SW
Finland. In: Uino, Pirjo (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002. Dating and Chronology. Museoviras­ton ar­
keo­­­lo­gian osaston julkaisuja N:o 10: 9-14.
Asplund, Henrik 2006. Muinaisranta etääntyy Lounais-Suomessa. Geologian vai arkeologian ongel-
ma? Muinaistutkija 4/2006: 2-10.
Asplund, Henrik 2007. Hirdens borg eller hägnade berg? Arkeologia NYT! Arkeologi NU! 2/2007: 17- 19.
Asplund, Henrik, Formisto, Tarja & Illmer, Kari 1989. Kotirinne - A Late Neolithic Mixed Farming
Site: Osteological and Chemical Investigations at the Kotirinne Dwelling Site at Niuskala, Turku,
SW Finland. Norwegian Archaeological Review. Vol. 22, No. 2: 119-129.
Asplund, Henrik, Nissinaho, Aino & Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 1999. Talon ja kylän arkeologiaa. Varelia
2/99: 12-13.
Asplund, Henrik & Vuorela, Irmeli 1989. Settlement studies in Kemiö - archaeological problems and
palynological evidence. Fennoscandia archaeologica VI: 67-79.
Atgāzis, M. 1994. Par Jaunlīves apmetni un tajā atklāto dzelzs ieguves krāsni. Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija
XVI: 81-92.
Axelsson, Susanne 2001. Kontext och social förändring: En metodisk diskussion. Tidsperspektiv. Tid­
skrift för arkeologisk samhällsanalys Nr 1-2 / 2001: 83-91.
Bahn, Paul 1992 (ed.). Collins Dictionary of Archaeology. HarperCollins Publishers: Glasgow.
Baille, M. G. L. 1991. Marking in marker dates: towards an archaeology with historical precision.
World Archaeology. Volume 23 No. 2: 233-243.
Baille, M. G. L. 1996. The Chronology of the Bronze Age 2354 BC to 431 BC. In: Randsborg, Klavs (ed.),
Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica vol. 67: 291-298.
Barber, K. E. 1982. Peat-bog stratigraphy as a proxy climate record. In: Harding, A. F. (ed.), Climatic
Change in Later Prehistory. Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh: 103-113.
Barford, P. M. 2000. Seen and unseen: sites in a landscape. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Sites and settle­
ment. Turku: 85-99.
Barker, Graeme 1999. Cattle-keeping in ancient Europe: to live together or apart? In: Fabech, Char-
lotte & Ringtved, Jytte (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Den­
mark, May 4-7 1998. Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus University Press: 273-280.
Becker, C. J. 1961. Førromersk jernalder i Syd- og Midtjylland. Nationalmuseets skrifter. Større beret-
ninger, VI. København.

394
Becker, C. J. 1977. Problemer om bosættelse i dansk jernalder. Hvad kan gravfundene sige om de ak-
tuelle problemer? In: Thrane, Henrik (ed.), Kontinuitet oq bebyggelse. Beretning fra et symposium d.
12.-14. Maj 1977 afholdt af Odense universitet. Odense Universitet. Skrifter fra institut for historie
og samfundsvidenskab nr. 22: 29-38.
Becker, C. J. 1983. Enkeltgård og landsby i Danmarks ældre jernalder. In: Thrane, Henrik & Grøngaard
Jeppesen, Torben (eds.), Gårdens udvikling frajernalderen til nyere tid. Beretning fra symposium i
Odense 28.-30. april 1982. Odense: 5-16.
Beech, Mark 1995. Whither archaeozoology? In: Kuna, Martin & Venclová, Natalie (eds.), Whither Ar­
chaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Praha: 97-109.
Behre, Karl-Ernst 1992. The history of rye cultivation in Europe. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany
1, 3: 141-156.
Bennett, Agneta 1987. Graven. Religiös och social symbol. Strukturer i folkvandringstidens gravskick i Mälar­
området. Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 18.
Berglund, Björn 1994. The Ystad project: Experiences of interdisciplinary research on the cultural
landscape history in Southern Sweden. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Cultural ecology: one theory?
Turku: 119-128.
Berglund, Björn E. 2005. Samhälle och miljö under sex tusen år. In: Bunte, Carin, Berglund, Björn E. &
Larsson, Lars (eds.), Arkeologi och naturvetenskap. Gyllenstiernska Krapperupstiftelsens symposium
nr 6 år 2003. Lund: 49-61.
Bergmann, Joseph 1997. Demograpische Untersuchungen zu einem vollständig ausgegrabenen
Brandgräberfeld der jüngeren Bronze- und älteren Eisenzeit bei Vollmarshausen, Kr. Kassel. In­
ternationale Archäologie 36: 215-220.
Biuw, Anita 1992. Norra Spånga. Bebyggelse och samhälle under järnåldern. Stockholmsmonografier vol
76. Borås.
Björck, A. 1883. Kiinteitä muinaisjäännöksiä Halikon Kihlakunnassa. Suomen Muinaismuisto-yhdistyk­
sen Aikakauskirja 8.
Björk, Tony 2005. Skäran på bålet. Om den äldre järnålderns gravar i Skåne. University of Lund, Institute
of Archaeology – Report Series No. 92.
Blaauw, Maarten, Van Geel, Bas & Van Der Plicht, Johannes 2004. Solar forcing of climatic change during
the mid-Holocene: indications from raised bogs in The Netherlands. The Holocene 14, 1: 35-44.
Blomkvist, Nils 1998. Culture clash or compromise? The medieval Europeanisation process of the
Baltic Rim region (1100-1400 AD). Problems for an international study. In: Blomkvist, Nils (ed.),
Culture Clash or Compromise? The Europeanisation of the Baltic Sea Area 1100-1400 AD. Papers of the
XIth Visby Symposium held at Gotland Centre for Baltic Studies, Gotland University College, Vis­by Octo­
ber 4th –9th, 1996. Acta Visbyensia XI: 9-36.
Blomkvist, Nils 1999. Common People in Common Places, 2. In: Blomkvist, Nils & Lindquist, Sven-
Olof 1999 (eds.), Europeans or Not? Local Level Strategies on the Baltic Rim 1100-1400 AD. CCC pa-
pers: 1: 293-314.
Bocquet-Appel, Jean-Pierre & Masset, Claude 1982. Farewell to Paleodemography. Journal of Human
Evolution 11: 321-333.
Bokiniec, Ewa 2005. Podwiesk. Fundstelle 2. Ein Gräberfeld der Oksywie-Kultur im Kulmer Land. Monu-
�����
menta Archaeologica Barbarica. Tomus XI.
Bolin, Hans 1999. Kulturlandskapets korsvägar. Mellersta Norrland under de två sista årtusendena f Kr.
Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 19.
Bolin, Hans 2004. “Their” Heritage in “Our” World. Eastern Influences Across the Baltic. In: Bolin,
Hans (ed.), The Interplay of Past and Present. Papers from a session held at the 9th annual EAA meeting
in St. Petersburg 2003. Södertörn Archaeological Studies 1: 8-18.

395
Bolin, Hans 2005. Ockuperad förhistoria – om östligt inflytande i den nordiska bronsålderskretsen. In:
Goldhahn, Joakim (ed.), Mellan sten och järn. Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter No 59: 217-227.
Borgmark, Anders 2005. Holocene climate variability and periodicities in south-central Sweden, as
interpreted from peat humification analysis. The Holocene 15, 3: 387-395.
Brady, Niall D.K. 1990. Early Ard Pieces in Finnish Museums. Tools & Tillage Vol. VI: 3: 158-175, 187.
Braudel, Fernand 1980. On History. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.
Brink, Stefan 1991. Sockenbildningen i Sverige. In: Ferm, Olle (ed.), Kyrka och socken i medeltidens
Sverige. Studier till det medeltida Sverige 5. Stockholm: 113-142.
Brink, Stefan 1996. Political and Social Structures in Early Scandinavia. A Settlement-historical Pre-
study of the Central Place. Tor 28: 235-281.
Broadbent, Noel D. 1989. En kort redogörelse för nyligen erhållna 14C-dateringar från Bjuröklubb,
Grundskatan, Stor����������������������������������������������������������������������������
a Fjäderägg och Stor-Rebben i Västerbotten och Norrbotten. In: Sander, Anni-
ka (ed.), Maritimhistorisk konferens Bottnisk kontakt IV. Skellefteå museum 5-7 februari 1988. Marie-
hamn: 21-23.
Broholm, H. C. 1946. Danmarks bronzealder. Tredje bind. Samlede fund fra den yngre bronzealder. København.
Brumfiel, Elisabeth M. & Earle, Timothy K. 1987. Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: an
introduction. In: Brumfield, Elisabeth M. & Earle, Timothy K. (eds.), Specialization, exchange, and
complex societies. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 1-9.
Brück, Joanna 1999. What’s in a settlement? Domestic practice and residental mobility in the study of
prehistoric settlement. In: Brück, Joanna & Goodman, Melissa (eds.), Making places in the pre­
historic world: themes in settlement archaeology. UCL Press: London: 52-75.
Bukowski, Zbgniew 1990. Zum Stand der demographischen und siedlungsgeschichtlichen Fo­rsch­
ung zur Lausitzer Kultur im Stromgebiet von Oder und Weichsel. Acta praehistorica et archaeo­
logica 22: 85-119.
Bukowski, Zbigniew 1998. Pomorze w epoce brazu w świetle dalekosiężnych kontaktów wymiennych.
Gdańskie towarzystwo naukowe wydział i naukspołecznych i humanistycznych seria mono­
grafii - nr 104. Gdańsk.
Burenhult, Göran 1983. Arkeologi i Sverige 2. Bönder och bronsgjutare. Förlags Ab Viken.
Butzer, Karl W. 1982. Archaeology as human ecology: Method and theory for a contextual approach. Cam-
bridge University Press: Cambridge.
Brun, Patrice 1994. From Hallstatt to La Tène Period in the Perspective of the Mediterranean World
Economy. In: Kristiansen, Kristian & Jensen, Jørgen (eds.), Europe in the First Millennium B.C.
Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 6: 57-65.
Bågenholm, Gösta 1992. Diskussion kring renskötselns ursprung – renen och andra etniska markörer
i Sameätanam. Kontaktstencil 36: 141-156.
Bågenholm, Gösta 1995. Corded Ware Ceramics in Finland and Sweden. Fennoscandia archaeologica XII: 19-23.
Callmer, Johan 1986. To Stay or to Move. Some Aspects on the Settlement Dynamics in Southern Scan-
dinavia in the Seventh to Twelfth Centuries A.D. with special Reference to the Province of Scania,
Southern Sweden. Meddelanden från Lunds universitets historiska museum 1985-1986. New Series
Vol. 6: 167-208.
Carelli, Peter 2001. En kapitalistisk anda. Kulturella förändringar i 1100-talets Danmark. Lund Studies in
Medieval Archaeology 26.
Carlsson, Anders 2001. Tolkande arkeologi och svensk forntidshistoria. Bronsåldern (med senneolitikum och
förromersk järnålder). Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 22.
Carlsson, Anders 2005. Tankar kring Torsten och Torborg. In: Bunte, Carin, Berglund, Björn E. & Lars-
son, Lars (eds.), Arkeologi och naturvetenskap. Gyllenstiernska Krapperupstiftelsens symposium nr 6 år
2003. Lund: 163-177.

396
Carlsson, Tom 2000. Rituell rekvisita – materiell kultur och religiösa ritualer under yngre brons­åldern.
In: Ersgård, Lars (ed.), Människors plaster – tretton arkeologiska studier från UV. Riksantikvarieäm-
betet Arkeologiska undersökningar Skrifter No 31: 45-55.
Carman, John 1999. Settling on sites: constraining concepts. In: Brück, Joanna & Goodman, Melissa (eds.),
Making places in the prehistoric world: themes in settlement archaeology. UCL Press: London: 52-75.
Carpelan, Christian 1973. Bofast - icke bofast under förhistorisk tid i Finland. In: Simonsen, Povl &
Stamsø Munch (eds.), Bonde - veidemann, bofast - ikke bofast i nordisk forhistorie. Foredrag och diskus­
joner fra XIII. nordiske arkeologmøte i Tromsø 1970. Tromsø Museums Skrifter Vol. XIV: 190-202.
Carpelan, Christian 1976. Nordfinska kåtabottnar från förhistorisk och historisk tid. Iskos 1: 30-34.
Carpelan, Christian 1979. Om asbestkeramikens historia i Fennoskandien. Finskt Museum 1978: 5-25.
Carpelan, Christian 1980. Contacts in the Northern Baltic Region as shown by ceramics. Helsingin yli­
opiston arkeologian laitos. Moniste n:o 22: 188-199.
Carpelan, Christian 1982. Om bronsålderns jordbrukssamhälle i Finland. In: Sjøvold, Thorleif (ed.),
Introduksjonen av jordbruk i Norden. Foredrag holdt ved fellesnordisk symposium i Oslo april 1980. Uni-
versitetsforlaget: 267-278.
Carpelan, Christian 1997. Appendix 4. KM 2672:1 – Keramiikkaa Räisälän Tiurinlinnasta. In: Uino,
Pirjo, Ancient Karelia. Archaeological studies – Muinais-Karjala. Arkeologisia tutkimuksia. Suomen
Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 104: 401-402.
Carpelan, C. & Jungner, H. 1982. Radiocarbon
�������������������������������������������������������������
and thermoluminescence dates from Iron Age dwell-
ing places in Isokylä, Salo, South-West Finland. In: Second Nordic conference on the application of
scientific methods in archaeology. Pact 7/1982: 149-155.
Carpelan, Christian & Uino, Pirjo 2003. Between Estonia and Finland – A Reassessment of old Finds
from Tytärsaari Island. In Lang, Valter & Tamla, Ûlle (eds.), Arheoloogiga Läänemeremaades. Uuri­
musi Jûri Seliranna auks. Muinasaja teadus 13: 75-93.
Cassel, Kerstin 1998. Från grav till gård. Romersk järnålder på Gotland. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 16.
Chapman, John 1997. Places as Timemarks - the Social Construction of Prehistoric Landscapes in
Eastern Hungary. In: Nash, George (ed.), Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind. BAR Inter-
national Series 661: 31-45.
Charman, Dan & Mäkilä, Markku 2003. Climate Reconstruction from Peatlands. PAGES News, Vol. 11,
N˚ 2 & 3: 15-17.
Cherry, John F. & Renfrew, Colin 1986. Epilogue and prospect. In: Renfrew, Colin & Cherry, John F. (eds.),
Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 149-158.
Children, George & Nash, George 1997. Establishing a Discourse: The Language of Landscape. In:
Nash, George (ed.), Semiotics of Landscape: Archaeology of Mind. BAR International Series 661: 1-4.
Ciglis, Janis 2003. Želenye klinovidnye topory v Latvii. Archaeologia Lituana 4: 112-121.
Cimermane, I. R. 1980. Keramika I tysjačel. n. z. kak istočnik dlja issledovanija étničeskoj istorii i ku-
turnyh véaimootnošenij na territorii Latvii. Iz drevnejšej istorii baltiskih narodov (po dannym ar­heo­
logii i antropologii). Riga: 70-79.
Cimermane, I. 1985. Keramika Dignajskogo gorodišča i nekotoryh drugih pamjatnikov selov kak
otraženie kontaktov s plemenami territorii Litvy v konce I tysjačeletija do n. é.- I tysjačeletija n.
é. Problemy étnogeneéa i etničeskoj istorii Baltov. Vilnius: 47-56.
Cleve, Nils 1942. Kimitobygdens forntid. Kimitobygdens historia II:1. Åbo: 1-26.
Cleve, Nils 1943. Skelettgravfälten på Kjuloholm i Kjulo I. Den yngre folkvandringstiden. Suomen Muinais-
muistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja XLIV.
Cleve, Nils 1948. Våra skärgårdars äldsta bebyggelse. In: Skärgårdsboken utgiven av Nordenskiöld-Sam­
fundet i Finland. Helsingfors: 482-509.

397
Cordell, Linda S., Doyel, David E. & Kintigh, Keith W. 1994. Process of Aggregation in the Prehisto­ric
Southwest. In: Gumerman, George J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory. School of American
Research Press: Santa Fe, New Mexico: 3-10.
Crumley, Carole L. 1995. Cultural implications of historic climatic change. In:
�����������������������
Kuna, Martin & Ven-
clová, Natalie (eds.), Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Praha: 121-132.
Dąbrowska, Teresa 1997. Kamieńczyk. Ein Gräberfeld der Przeworsk-Kultur in Ostmasowien. Monumenta
Archaeologica Barbarica. Tomus III. Kraków.
Dąbrowski, Jan 1997. Epoka brązu w Północno-Wschodniej Polsce. Białostockie Towarzystwo Naukowe.
Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii. Polskiej Akademii nauk. Białystok.
Dahlbäck, Göran 1977. Arkeologisk och kulturgeografisk bebyggelsehistorisk forskning i Sverige.
Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 1977: 377-385.
Dahlström, Svante 1995 Gullkrona. 4. upplagan. Ekenäs.
Dahnberg, Johan & Sandin, Mats 1996. Centrum och periferi i Järnålderns Göteborgs och Bohus län.
Tankar kring en fallstudie. Kontaktstencil 39: 115-126.
Daugnora, Linas & Girininkas, Algirdas 1995. Neolithic and Bronze Age mixed farming and stock
breeding in the traditional Baltic culture-area. In: Kazakevičius, Vytautas & Sidrys, Raymond
(eds.), Archaeologia Baltica. Vilnius: 43-51.
Dean, Jeffrey S., Doelle, William H. & Orcutt, Janet D. 1994. Adaptive Stress, Environment, and De-
mography. In: Gumerman, George J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory. School of American
Research Press: Santa Fe, New Mexico: 53-86.
Donner, Joakim 1984. Some Comments on the Pollen-analytical Records of Cereals and Their Dating
in Southern Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica I: 13-17.
Dreijer, Matts 1979. Det åländska folkets historia I:1. Från stenåldern till Gustav Vasa. Mariehamn.
Dreslerová, Dagmar 1995. �������������������������������������������������������������������������
A settlement-economic model for a prehistoric microregion: settlement ac-
tivities in the Vinoř-stream basin during the Hallstatt period. ��������������������������������
In: Kuna, Martin & Venclová, Na-
talie (eds.), Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Praha: 145-160.
Dreyfus, Hubert & Rabinow, Paul 1983. Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. The
Harvester Press.
Duby, Georges 1994. Love and Marriage in the Middle Ages. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Duke, Philip 1992. Braudel and North American archaeology: an example from the Northern Plains.
In: Knapp, Bernard A. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge: 99-111.
Dunnell, Robert C. 1992. The Notion Site. In: Rossignol, Jacqueline & Wandsnider, LuAnn (eds.),
Space, Time and Archaeological Landscapes. Plenum Press: New York: 21-41.
Dunnell, Robert C. & Dancey, William S. 1983. The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection
Strategy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 6: 267-287.
Edgren, Torsten 1966. Jäkärlä-gruppen. En västfinsk kulturgrupp under yngre stenålder. Suomen
���������������
Muinais-
muistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 64.
Edgren, Torsten 1969. Reflexioner kring tvenne epineolitiska lerkärl. Finskt Museum 1969: 22-26.
Edgren, Torsten 1970. Studier över den snörkeramiska kulturens keramik i Finland. Suomen Muinais-
muistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 72.
Edgren, Torsten 1973. En baltisk smyckenål från Veitakkala i Salo. Honos Ella Kivikoski. Suomen
Muinais­muistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 75: 30-31.
Edgren, Torsten 1977. Medeltidsarkeologi i Skärgårdshavet. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 1977: 404-426.
Edgren, Torsten 1984. On the Economy and Subsistence of the Battle-Axe Culture in Finland. Iskos 4: 9-15.
Edgren, Torsten 1986.Ett bronsåldersspänne från Linjebacka I Esse. Iskos 6: 17-23.

398
Edgren, Torsten 1993a. Den förhistoriska tiden. Finlands historia 1. Ekenäs: 10-270.
Edgren, Torsten 1993b. Lavansaaren Suursuonmäen röykkiöhaudat. Suomen Museo 1992: 5-20.
Edgren, Torsten 1995a. Saariston hiisi. Hiidenkivi 1/95: 10-16.
Edgren, Torsten 1995b. “... De Aspø usque Ørsund.vi. Inde usque Hangethe.iij ...”. An archaeological
project concerning one of the harbours in Finland’s south-western archipelago referred to in “the
Danish itinerary”. In: Olsen, Olaf, Skamby Madsen, Jan & Rieck, Fleming (eds.), Shipshape. Essays
for Ole Crumlin-Pedersen. Roskilde: 203-212.
Edgren, Torsten 1995c. Kyrksundet i Hitis. Ett arkeologiskt forskningsprojekt kring en av “det dans-
ka itinerariets” hamnar i det sydvästra Finlands skärgård. Budkavlen 1995: 48-66.
Edgren, Torsten 1996a. Arkeologi i Hitis utskär. Skärgård 3/1996: 15-21.
Edgren, Torsten 1996b. Borgåtraktens förhistoria. In: Edgren, Torsten & Gardberg, Carl Jakob, Borgå
stads historia I. Borgå: 11-126.
Edgren, Torsten 1997a. Bakom lås och bom. Kring en vikingatida nyckeltyp. In: Blomqvist, Marianne
(ed.), Ord och några visor tillägnade Kurt Zilliacus 21.7.1997. Meddelanden från Institutionen för
nordiska språk och nordisk litteratur vid Helsingfors universitet utgivna genom Ann-Marie
Ivars och Mirja Saari B:18: 43-49.
Edgren, Torsten 1997b. Varhaisia saviastioita Dragsfjärdin Purunpään vesiltä. Nautica Fennica 1997: 27-34.
Edgren, Torsten 1998. Vem bebodde bronsåldersbyn på Otterböte i Kökar. Skärgård 2/1998: 41-47.
Edgren, Torsten 1999a. Fornlämningar och fornfynd i Hitis utskär. Sagalundgillet. Ekenäs.
Edgren, Torsten 1999b. Alkavan rautakauden kulttuurikuva Länsi-Suomessa. In: Fogelberg, Paul
(ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till kännedom av Fin-
lands natur och folk 153: 311-333.
Eggers, Hans Jûrgen 1955. Zur absoluten Chronologie der Römischen Kaiserzeit im freien Germa-
nien. Jahrbuch des Römisch-Germanischen Zentralmuseums Mainz 2. Jahrgang 1955: 196-238.
Eggers, Hans Jürgen 1959. Einführung in die Vorgeschichte. Buchdruckerei Eugen Göbel: Tübingen.
Eklund, Ole 1958. Die Gefässpfanzenflora beiderseits Skiftet im Schärenarchipel Südwestfinnlands. Kirch­
spiele Korpo, Houtskär, Nagu, Iniö, Brändö, Kumlinge, Sottunga und Kökar. Bidrag till kännedom af
Finlands natur och folk. Utgifna af Finska Vetenskapssocieteten. H. 101.
Eliade, Mircea 1987. The Sacred and the Profane. The Nature of Religion. New York.
Enqvist, Johanna 2005. Rautakauden tyypin keramiikka – rautakautinen keramiikkatyyppikö? In: Pe-
sonen, Petro & Mökkönen, Teemu (eds.), Arkeologipäivät 2004. Suomen arkeologinen seura.
Hamina: 95-102.
Eriksson, Thomas 2005. Dekor och dekorerad keramik i Mälardalen – en regel med ett undantag. In:
Goldhahn, Joakim (ed.), Mellan sten och järn. Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter No 59: 369-383.
Erkola, Toini 1973. Paimion esihistoria. In: Erkola Toini, von Hertzen, Erik & Innamaa, Kerttu, Pai­mion
historia. Paimio: 7-68.
Eronen, Matti 2002. Ilmaston vaihtelut jääkauden jälkeen. In: Grünthal, Riho (ed.), Ennen, muinoin. Miten
menneisyyttämme tutkitaan. Tietolipas 180. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Helsinki: 64-75.
Eronen, M., Glückert, G., Hatakka, L., van de Plassche, O., van der Plicht, J. & Rantala, P. 2001. Rates
of Holocene isostatic uplift and relative sea-level lowering of the Baltic in SW Finland based on
studies of isolation contacts. Boreas, Vol. 30: 17-30.
Eronen, Matti, Lindholm, Markus, Helama, Samuli, Meriläinen, Jouko & Timonen, Mauri 2003. ���
Re-
construction of Low- and High-Frequency Summer Temperature Changes From a Tree-Ring
Archive of Fennoscandian Forest-Limit Scots Pine. PAGES News, Vol. 11, N˚ 2 & 3: 14-15.
Erä-Esko, Aarni 1969. Akinakeslöytö Pohjois-Suomesta. Suomen Museo 1969: 85-93.
Europaeus, Aarne 1930. Uusia kivikauden taidelöytöjä. Suomen Museo 1929: 82-88.

399
Fabech, Charlotte 1999. Centrality in sites and landscapes. In: Fabech, Charlotte & Ringtved, Jytte
(eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998.
Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus University Press: 455-473.
Fabech, Charlotte, Hvass, Steen, Näsman, Ulf & Ringtved, Jytte 1999. 'Settlement and Landscape' –
a presentation of a research programme and a conference. Fabech, Charlotte & Ringtved, Jytte
(eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998.
Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus University Press: 13-28.
Fagerlund, Rainer 1992. Förhistorisk tid och medeltid. Nagu sockens historia I. Nagu kommun. Åbo: 9-25.
Fagerström, Levi 2003. The Hitis Kyrksundet. In: Johansson, Helena (ed.), Churches and Chapels in
Åboland. Turku: 50-51.
Fallgren, Jan-Henrik 1993. The Concept of the Village in Swedish Archaeology. Current Swedish
Archaeology Vol. 1. 1993: 59-86.
Faubion, James D. (ed.) 1994. Power. Essential works of Foucault 1954-1984. Volume three. Penguin Books:
London.
Feinman, Gary M. 1995. The Emergence of Inequality. A Focus on Strategies and Processes. In: Price,
T. Douglas & Feinman, Gary M. (eds.), Foundations of Social Inequality. Plenum Press: New York.
Feldt, Björn 2005. Synliga och osynliga gränser. Förändringar i gravritualen under yngre bronsålder
– förromersk järnålder i Södermanland. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 37.
Ferguson, R. Brian 1984. Introduction: Studying War. In: Ferguson, R. Brian (ed.), Warfare, culture, and
environment. Academic Press: Orlando: 1-81.
Fish, Paul R., Fish, Suzanne K., Gumerman, George J. & Reid, J. Jefferson 1994. Toward an Explana-
tion for Southwestern “Abandonments”. In: Gumerman, George J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Pre­
history. School of American Research Press: Santa Fe, New Mexico: 135-163.
Foley, Robert 1981. Off-site archaeology: an alternative approach for the short-sited. In: Hodder, Ian,
Isaac, Glynn & Hammond, Norman (eds.), Pattern of the past. Studies in honour of David Clarke.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 157-183.
Forsberg, Lars 1999. The Bronze Age Site at Mårtenfäboda in Nysätra and the Settlement Context of the
Cairns on the Coast of North Sweden. In: Huurre, Matti (ed.), Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäi­
nen. The Finnish Antiquarian Society, The Archaeological Society of Finland. Jyväskylä: 251-285.
Forsén, Björn & Moisanen, Jukka 1995. Svartån och den tidiga bebyggelsen runt denna. Finskt Mu­
seum 1993: 26-49.
Forstén, Ann 1973. The Refuse Fauna of the Mesolithic Suomusjärvi Period in Finland. Finskt Museum
1972: 74-84.
Forstén, Ann & Blomqvist, L. 1977. Refuse Faunas of the Vantaa Mesolithic and Neolithic Periods.
Finskt Museum 1974: 50-55.
Forss, Aulis & Jarva, Eero 1992. Raahen seudun varhaishistoria Saloisten Tervakankaan löytöjen va-
lossa. In: Julku, Kyösti (ed.), Suomen varhaishistoria. Tornion kongressi 14.-16.6.1991. Studia Histo-
rica Septentrionalia: 57-75.
Fortelius, Mikael 1981. Johdatus arkeologiseen luuanalyysiin. Museovirasto. Esihistorian toimisto. Jul­kai­su n.o 1.
Foucault, Michel 1980. Power / Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. Pantheon
Books: New York.
Foucault, Michel 1982. The Subject and Power. In: Rabinow, Paul & Dreyfus, Hubert, Michel Foucault:
Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics. The Harvester Press.
Frenzel, Burkhard 1999. Vegetationsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur frühackenbaulichen nu�� t-
zung des nordöstlichen Vorlandes des Sudeten. Ein Vorbericht. In: Valde-Nowak, Paweł (ed.),
Początki osadnictwa w Sudetach. Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii PAN: Kraków: 157-169.

400
Friberg, Nils & Friberg, Inga 1974. Vikingatidens befolkning i Mälarlandskapen. Forskningsprojektet Re-
gionala utvecklingslinjer och strukturförändringar i Sveriges befolkningsgeografi, Meddelande
nr 4. Stockholms Universitet, Kulturgeografiska Institutionen.
Frölund, Per & Wilson, Lars 1993. Bybildning - Förhistorisk kontinuitet eller medeltida innovation?
Exempel från Uppland och Västmanland. Arkeologi i Sverige. Ny följd 2: 139-146.
Gaines, Sylvia W. & Gaines, Warren M. 2000. Impact of Small-Group Decision Making in Reducing
Stress Conditions. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19: 103-130.
Gallén, Jarl 1993. Det “Danska itinerariet”. Franciskans expansionsstrategi i Östersjön. Skrifter utgivna av
Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland. Nr 579.
Gardberg, John 1944. Tidsåldrar och öden intill 1721. Kimitobygdens historia I:1. Åbo: 1-317.
Gilchrist, Roberta 2000. Archaeological biographies: realizing human lifecycles, -courses and -histo-
ries. In: Gilchrist, Roberta (ed.), Human Lifecycles. World Archaeology Vol. 31(3): 325-328.
Gimbutas, Marija 1956. The prehistory of eastern Europe. Part 1. Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age cul­
tures in Russia and the Baltic area. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Glückert, Gunnar 1976. Post-Glacial Shore-Level Displacement of the Baltic in SW Finland. Annales
Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Series A III 118.
Glückert, Gunnar 1996. Turun alueen geologinen kehitys jääkaudesta nykyaikaan, Itämeren rannan-
siirtyminen ja asutushistoria. Arkeologia NYT! Arkeologi NU! 4/1996: 8-12.
Godłlowski, Kazimierz & Wichman, Tomasz 1998. Chmielów Piaskowy. Ein Gräberfeld der Przeworsk-
Kultur im Świętokryskie-Gebirge. Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica. Tomus VI.
Gordon, Colin 1994. Introduction. In: Faubion, James D. (ed.), Power. Essential works of Foucault 1954-
1984. Volume three. Penguin Books: London.
Goslar, Tomasz 2003. 14C as an Indicator of Solar Variability. PAGES News, Vol. 11, N˚ 2 & 3: 12-14.
Granholm, Helge & Häggblom, Birger 1969. Särkisalon pitäjän historia. Virkkala.
Graudonis, J. J. 1967. Latvija v epohu pozdnej bronzy i rannego železa. Riga.
Graudonis, J. 1968. Par Latvijas agrā metālu perioda iedzīvotāju sakariem. Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija VIII: 31-51.
Graudonis, Jānis 2001. Agro Metālu periods 1500.–1. g. pr. Kr. Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. pr. Kr.–1200. g. Riga: 116-185.
Griciuvienė, E. 2000. Gathering, agriculture. In: Prehistoric Lithuania. Archaeological exposition guide.
National Museum of Lithuania: 44-47.
Grigalavičienė, Elena 1995. Žalvario ir ankstyvasis geležies amžius Lietuvoje. Vilnius.
Grünthal, Riho 2002. Johdanto. In: Grünthal, Riho (ed.), Ennen, muinoin. Miten menneisyyttämme tutki­
taan. Tietolipas 180. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Helsinki: 9-17.
Gumerman, George J. 1994. Patterns and Perturbations in Southwestern Prehistory. In: Gumerman, George J.
(ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory. School of American Research Press: Santa Fe, New Mexico: 3-10.
Gumerman, George J. & Gell-Mann, Murray 1994. Cultural Evolution in the Prehistoric Southwest.
In: Gumerman, George J. (ed.), Themes in Southwest Prehistory. School of American Research
Press: Santa Fe, New Mexico: 11-31.
Gustafson, Lil, Heibreen, Tom & Martens, Jes (eds.) 2005. De gåtefulle kokegroper. Kokegropseminariet 31.
November 2001. Varia 58.
Gustavsson, Kenneth 1997. Multidisciplinary analyses on Bronze Age pottery from Otterböte, Åland.
Iskos 11: 193-202.
Gustavsson, Kenneth 1998. Otterböte. New Light on a Bronze Age Site in the Baltic. Theses and Papers in
Archaeology B:4. Stockholm University.
Göthberg, Hans 1995. Huskronologi i Mälarområdet, på Gotland och Öland. In: Hus & gård. Artikel­
del. Hus & gård i det förurbana samhället - Rapport från ett sektorforskningsprojekt vid Riksantikvarie­
ämbetet. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter nr 14: 65-109.

401
Göthberg, Hans 2000. Bebyggelse i förändring. Uppland från slutet av yngre bronsålder till tidig medeltid.
Occasional Papers in Archaeology 25. Uppsala.
Haarni, Tuukka 1997. Joustavia tiloja. Vallan ja ulossulkemisen urbaania tulkintaa. In: Haarni, Tuuk-
ka, Karvinen, Marko, Koskela, Hille & Tani, Sirpa (eds.), Tila, paikka ja maisema. Tutkimusretkiä
uuteen maantieteeseen. Tampere: 87-104.
Haarni, Tuukka, Karvinen, Marko, Koskela, Hille & Tani, Sirpa 1997. Johdatus nykymaantieteeseen.
In: Haarni, Tuukka, Karvinen, Marko, Koskela, Hille & Tani, Sirpa (eds.), Tila, paikka ja maisema.
Tutkimusretkiä uuteen maantieteeseen. Tampere: 9-34.
Hackman, Alfred 1897. Die Bronzezeit Finnlands. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja
XVII: 349-408.
Hackman, Alfred 1900. Vorgeschichtliche Altertümer aus Finland. Photographishe Tafeln aus dem Histori­
schen Museum des Staates in Helsingfors. Helsingfors.
Hackman, Alfred 1905. Die ältere Eisenzeit in Finnland. I. Die Funde aus den fünf ersten Jahrhunderten n.
Chr. Helsingfors.
Hackman, Alfred 1910. Ett fornfynd på Tytärsaari i Finska viken. Kaukomieli IV: 45-58.
Hackman, Alfred 1917a. Om Nylands kolonisation under järnåldern och andra därmed samman-
hängande frågor. II. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 1917 H. 4: 241-283.
Hackman, Alfred 1917b. Förvärv till Nationalmuseet år 1915. III. Järnåldern. Finskt Museum XXIV: 59-73.
Haggrén, Georg 2005a. Moisio – kartano – kirkko. Suurtalot ja kristinuskon juurtuminen varsinaiseen
Suomeen. SKAS 1/2005: 12-26.
Haggrén, Georg 2005b. Arkeologiska undersökningar på en medeltida bytomt i Köklax, Esbo.
Nor­denskiöld-samfundets tidskrift 65: 83-101.
Haggrén, Georg, Jansson, Henrik & Knuutinen, Tarja 2007. Inkoon Storböle – Keskiaikainen autio-
tontti Länsi-Uudenmaan saaristossa. SKAS 3/2007: 3-11.
Hallinder, Pär & Haglund, Kerstin 1978. Iron currency bars in Sweden. ��������������������������
In: Lamm, Kristina & Lund-
ström, Agneta (eds.), Excavations at Helgö V:1. Workshop Part II. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och An-
tikvitets Akademien. Lund.
Halstead, Paul & O’Shea, John 1989. Introduction: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty. In: Hal-
stead, Paul & O’Shea, John (eds.), Bad year economics: cultural responses to risk and uncertainty.
Cambridge University press: Cambridge: 1-7.
Harding, Anthony F. & Ostoja-Zagórski, Janusz 1993. The Lausitz Culture and the Beginning and End of
Bronze Age Fortifications. In: Chapman, John & Dolukhanov, Pavel (eds.), Cultural Transformations
in Eastern Europe. Worldwide Archaeology Series 6. Avebury: Newcastle-upon-Tyne: 163-177.
Harju, Timo 1995. Ihmisen ja luonnon vuorovaikutus autioitumisen taustalla. In: Nissinaho, Aino
(ed.), Ihmisen maisema. Kirjoituksia yhteisön ja ympäristön muutoksesta Lounais-Suomen rannikolla.
Turku: 65-75.
Harjula, Janne 1996. Kiukaisissa hiihdettiin jo rautakaudella. Hiidenkivi 2/96: 24-25.
Harjula, Janne 2000. Burial
�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������
cairns in the region of the ancient bay of Panelia. A study of cultural for-
mation processes. Fennoscandia archaeologica XVII: 83-102.
Hassan, Fekri A. 1981. Demographic Archaeology. Academic Press: New York.
Hatakka, Lassi & Glückert, Gunnar 2000. Calibration curves representing shore displacement of the
Baltic based on radiocarbon ages in the Karjaa, Perniö, Turku, Mynämäki, and Laitila areas, SW
Finland. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Sites and settlement. Turku: 3-14.
Hauptman Wahlgren, Katherine 2002. Bilder av betydelse. Hällristningar och bronsålderslandskap i nord­
östra Östergötland. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 23.
Hausen, Reinhold 1890. Registrum Ecclesiœ Aboensis eller Åbo Domkyrkas Svartbok. Med tillägg ur
Skoklosters Codex Aboensis. Helsingfors.

402
Havia, Timo 1989. Ruotsinvallan aika. In: Piikkiön historia 1. Esihistoria ja suurvallan aika. Jyväskylä: 79-646.
Heikkurinen-Montell, Tuula 1986. Kokemäen Kraviojankankaan savi-idolit. Iskos 6: 31-36.
Heino, Ulla 1995. Ympäristöstäkö historiallisen kehityksen selittäjä? In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Ihmisen
maisema. Kirjoituksia yhteisön ja ympäristön muutoksesta Lounais-Suomen rannikolla. Turku: 47-62.
Helama, Samuli, Lindholm, Markus, Timonen, Mauri, Meriläinen, Jouko & Eronen, Matti 2002. The
supra-long Scots pine tree-ring record for Finnish Lapland: Part 2, interannual to centennial
va­ria­­bility in summer temperatures for 7500 years. The Holocene 12, 6: 681-687.
Hellsten, Sonja 1998. Ny bronsåldersboplats i Prostvik. Åbo Underrättelser 12 november 1998.
Herrgård, Mikael & Holmblad, Peter 2005. Fornminnen i Österbotten från neandertalare till sockenbor.
Acta Antiqua Ostrobotniensia. Studier i Österbottens förhistoria nr VI. Vasa.
Hesjedal, Anders, Damm, Charlotte, Olsen, Bjørnar & Storli, Inger 1996. Arkeologi på Slettnes. Doku-
mentasjon av 11.000 års bosetning. Tromsø Museums Skrifter XXVI.
Heynowski, Ronald 2000. Die Wendelringe der späten Bronze- und der frühen Eisenzeit. Universitätsfor-
schungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie. Band 64.
Hiekkanen, Markus 1981. Porvoo. Keskiajan kaupungit 1. Museovirasto. Helsinki.
Hiekkanen, Markus 1983. Rauma. Keskiajan kaupungit 2. Museovirasto. Helsinki.
Hiekkanen, Markus 1988. Naantali. Keskiajan kaupungit 4. Museovirasto. Helsinki.
Hiekkanen, Markus 2000. Kirkkorakennukset ja keskiajan yhteiskunta. In: Lempa, Nina (ed.), Kirkko
kulttuurin kantajana. Kirkkohallitus, Museovirasto.Vammala: 18-34.
Hiekkanen, Markus 2003. Suomen kivikirkot keskiajalla. Keuruu.
Hiekkanen, Markus 2004a. Keskiajan seurakuntia ja kappelikuntia Vakka-Suomessa. Tuluskivi 2004: 8-10.
Hiekkanen, Markus 2004b. An Outline of the Early Stages of Ecclesiastical Organization in Finland.
In: Guðmundsson, Garðar (ed.), Current Issues in Nordic Archaeology. Proceedings of the 21st Con­
ference of Nordic Archaeologists, 6-9 September 2001, Akureyri, Iceland. Society of Icelandic Arc­haeo­
logista. Reykjavik: 161-165.
Hiekkanen, Markus 2005. Kun suomalaiset vaihtoivat uskontoa. Ristiretkiajan ja varhaiskeskiajan
historiakuva muuttuu. Historia 1/2005: 30-33.
Hiekkanen, Markus 2007. Suomen keskiajan kivikirkot. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia
1117. Helsinki.
Hiekkanen, Markus & Seger, Tapio 1988. Beyond post-holes: an investigation of Pre-Roman house
remains at Mickels in Espoo, S. Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica V: 21-33.
Hiltunen, Esa 1980. Liedon pitäjän asutus keskiajalla. Karhunhammas 4: 17-41.
Hiltunen, Esa 1986. Lounais-Suomen asutushistorian tutkimusongelmia. In: Kuparinen, Eero (ed.),
VIII Suomalais-Neuvostolittolainen yhteiskuntahistorian symposiumi Turussa 2.–6.9.1984. Tu­
run Historiallinen Arkisto 41: 56-68.
Hiltunen, Esa 1988. Ruotsin vallan aika. In: Mansikkaniemi, Hannu, Luoto, Jukka & Hiltunen, Esa,
Liedon historia 1. Turku: 193-547.
Hiltunen, Esa & Luoto, Jukka 1985. The development of the cultural landscape in the Paimio River
Valley as an historical and archaeological problem. In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference
on the Application of Scientific Methods in Archaeology. Iskos 5: 443-450.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1968. Früheisenzetliches Gräberfeld auf dem Pikku Linnanmäki von Porvoo.
Suomen Museo 1968: 5-36.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1971. Veitakkalan ristineula. Hakastarolainen 5: 20-23.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1985. Rautakausi. Böle esiroomalaisella rautakaudella 500-0 e.Kr. Kivikaudesta
keskiaikaan. Porvoon seudun esihistoriaa. Porvoon Museoyhdistyksen julkaisuja nro 1: 58-65.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1991. Salon esihistoria. Jyväskylä.

403
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1992. Esihistoriallisen ajan Halikko. In: Halikon historia I. Jyväskylä: 11-150.
Hjärtner-Holdar, Eva 1989. Early Metallurgy in Easter Central Sweden. In: Ambrosiani, B. (ed.), Die
Bronzezeit im Ostseegebiet. Ein rapport der Kgl. Schwedischen Akademie der Literatur Geschichte und
Altertumsforschung über das Julita-Symposium 1986. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets
Akademien. Konferenser 22: 143-159.
Hjärtner-Holdar, Eva 1993a. Övergången från brons- till järnmetallurgi - en fråga om resurser. In:
Forsberg, Lars & Larsson, Thomas B. (eds.), Ekonomi och näringsformer i nordisk bronsålder. Rapport
från det 6:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Nämforsen 1990. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis
Umensis 3: 163-176.
Hjärtner-Holdar, Eva 1993b. Järnets och järnmetallurgins introduction i Sverige. Aun 16.
Hodder, Ian 1987. The contribution of the long term. In: Hodder, Ian (ed.), Archaeology as long term
history. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 1-8.
Hodder, Ian & Orton, Clive 1976. Spatial analysis in archaeology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Holm, Lena 2000. Pottery and Meaning. A Communicative View. In: Olausson, Deborah & Vandkilde,
Helle (eds.), Form, Function & Context. Material culture studies in Scandinavian archaeology. Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°, No. 31: 193-202.
Holmblad, Peter 2005. Myt och mening i det rörliga landskapet. Landskapet som en nyckel till den
österbottniska järnålderns världsbild och samhälle. In: Pesonen, Petro & Mökkönen, Teemu
(eds.), Arkeologipäivät 2004. Suomen arkeologinen seura. Hamina: 41-48.
Holmblad, Peter 2007. Tidig metallålder i Österbotten – preliminära arkeologiska och miljöarkeolo-
giska resultat från Malax och Laihela. In: Vilkuna, Janne, Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka & Heikkinen,
Virpi (eds.), IV Mittnordiska arkeologidagar Saarijärvi 14.-16. juni 2007. Keski-Suomi 20: 147-159.
Holmgren, Karin 2005. Klimatet, människan och samhället. In: Bunte, Carin, Berglund, Björn E. &
Larsson, Lars (eds.), Arkeologi och naturvetenskap. Gyllenstiernska Krapperupstiftelsens symposium
nr 6 år 2003. Lund: 33-48.
Holzhauser, Hanspeter, Magny, Michel & Zumbühl, Heins J. 2005. Glacier and lake-level variations in
west-central Europe over the last 3500 years. The Holocene 15, 6: 789-801.
Honkanen, Pekka 1981. Uudenmaan kansainvaellus- ja merovingiaika. Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian
laitos. Moniste n:o 26.
Huldén, Lars 2001. Finlandssvenska bebyggelsenamn. Namn på landskap, kommuner, byar i Finland av
svenskt ursprung eller med särskild svensk form. Skrifter utgivna av Svenska litteratursällskapet i
Finland nr 635. Helsingfors.
Hunn, Eugene 1994. Place-Names, Population Density, and the Magic Number 500. Current Anthro­
pology 35, 1: 81-85.
Huurre, Matti 1995. 9000 vuotta Suomen esihistoriaa. Viides, uudistettu painos. Keuruu.
Huurre, Matti 1998. Kivikauden Suomi. Keuruu.
Huurre, Matti 2003. Maatalouden alku Suomessa. In: Rasila, Viljo, Jutikkala, Eino & Mäkelä-Alitalo,
Anneli (eds.), Suomen maatalouden historia I. Perinteisen maatalouden aika. Esihistoriasta 1870-
luvulle. Suomen Kirjallisuuden Seura: Helsinki: 38-66.
Hyenstrand, Åke 1974. Centralbygd - Randbygd. Strukturella, ekonomiska och administrativa huvudlinjer i mellan­
svensk yngre järnålder. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studies in North-European Archaeology 5.
Hyenstrand, Åke 1983. Kulturlandskap och bebyggelsehistoria. Kring ett forskningsfält med exempel från
forntid och medeltid. Arkeologiska rapporter och meddelanden från institutionen för arkeologi
vid Stockholms universitet. Nr 13.
Häkkinen, Kaisa 2004. Nykysuomen etymologinen sanakirja. Juva.
Häkkinen, Kaisa & Lempiäinen, Terttu 1996. Die ältesten Getreidepflanzen der Finnen und ihre Nah-
men. In: Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen Band 53/Heft 1-3: 115-182.

404
Hällström, Olof af 1948. Karis socken från forntiden till våra dagar I. Forntiden. Ekenäs.
Ikäheimo, Janne 2002. Astiat ilman aikaa ja paikkaa – rautakautisesta keramiikanvalmistuksesta. In:
Halinen, Petri, Kankaanpää, Raimo & Pesonen, Petro (eds.), Arkeologiapäivät 2001. Kronologia.
Suomen arkeologinen seura. Vantaa: 46-51.
Ikäheimo, Janne P., Joona, Juha-Pekka & Hietala, Mikko 2004. Wretchedly Poor, but Amazingly Practi­
cal: Archaeological and Experimental Evidence on the Bone Arrowheads of the Fenni. Acta
Borealia 1-2004: 3-20.
Immonen, Visa 2002. Puulusikka Lestijärveltä pronssi- ja rautakauden taitteesta. Muinaistutkija 4/2002: 18-22.
Immonen, Visa 2004. Hämmentävä kokoelma Kalannista. Muinaistutkija 1/2004: 58-61.
Indreko, R. 1939. Asva linnus-asula. In: Muistse Eesti Linnused. 1936-1938 a. uurimiste tulemused. Ope-
tatud Eesti Selts. Tartu: 17-52.
Ingold, Tim 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeology 25: 152-174.
Innamaa, Kerttu 1973. Isonvihan ajasta 1960-luvulle. In: Paimion historia. Hämeenlinna: 351-922.
Innamaa, Kerttu 1982. Perniön historia. Salo.
Itkonen, Erkki & Joki, Aulis J. 1976. Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja III. Lexica Societatis Fenno-
Ugricae XII, 3.
Itkonen, Erkki, Joki, Aulis J. & Peltola, Reino 1978. Suomen kielen etymologinen sanakirja VI. Lexica So-
cietatis Fenno-Ugricae XII, 6.
Jaanits, L., Laul, S., Lõugas, V. & Tõnisson, E. 1982. Eesti esiajalugu. Tallinn.
Jaanits, Kaarel 1994. Excavations at Narva. Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Humanitaar- ja sotsiaal­
teadused 43, 1:18-20.
Jaanusson, Hille 1981. Hallunda. A study of Pottery from a Late Bronze Age Settlement in Central Sweden.
The Museum of National Antiquities, Stockholm. Studies 1.
Jaanusson, Hille 1985. Main Early Bronze Age pottery provinces in the northern Baltic region. In: Loit,
Aleksander & Selirand, Jüri (eds.), Die Verbindungen zwischen Skandinavien und Ostbaltikum auf­
grund der archäologischen Quellenmaterialen. I. Symposium der sowjetestnischen und schwedischen
Archäologen. Tallinn 12.-15. Oktober 1982. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studia Baltica Stock-
holmiensia 1: 39-50.
Jaanusson, Hille 1993. Sveriges och Estlands kontakter under förhistorisk tid. Sten- och bronsåldern. In:
Dahlberg, Anne-Marie & Tamla, Toomas (eds.), Eesti ja Rootsi. Estland och Sverige. Tallinn: 9-13.
Jankuhn, Herbert 1976. Archäologie und Geschichte. Vortrage und Aufsätze. Band 1. Beiträge zur sied­lungs­
archäologischen Forschung. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin.
Jankuhn, Herbert 1977. Einführung in die Siedlungsarchäologie. Walter de Gruyter: Berlin.
Jankuhn, Herbert 1979. Siedlungsarchäologie als Forschungsmethode. Jankuhn, Herbert & Wenskus,
Reinhard (eds.), Geschichtswissenschaft und Archäologie. Untersuchungen zur Siedlungs-, Wirtshafts-
und Kirchengeschichte. Vorträge und Forschungen. Herausgegeben vom Konstanzer Arbeitskreis
für mittelalterliche Geschichte. Band XXII. Jan Thorbecke Verlag: Sigmaringen: 19-43.
Jansson, Henrik 2004. Historiallisen ajan alun arkeologiaa Suomen eteläkärjessä. Hangon Gun­nars­
ängenin tutkimukset vuosina 2003 ja 2004. SKAS 4/2004: 38-43.
Jansson, Henrik 2005. Det nyländska maritima landskapet i focus. Nordenskiöld-samfundets tidskrift 65: 63-71.
Jażdżewski, Konrad 1965. Poland. Ancient Peoples and Places. Thames and Hudson: London.
Jennbert, Kristina 2000. Peopling the Landscape. The Landscape - Variable, Invisible, and Visible. In:
Olausson, Deborah & Vandkilde, Helle (eds.), Form, Function & Context. Material culture studies in
Scandinavian archaeology. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°, No. 31: 51-57.
Jensen, Jørgen 1993. Dendrochronology of the Danish Oak Coffin Graves. In: Larsson, Lars (ed.),
Bronsålderns gravhögar. Rapport från ett symposium i Lund 15.XI-16.XI 1991. University
�����������������������
of Lund. In-
stitute of Archaeology Report Series No. 48: 187-190.

405
Jensen, Jørgen 1994. The Turning Point. In: Kristiansen, Kristian & Jensen, Jørgen (eds.), Europe in the
First Millennium B.C. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 6: 111-124.
Jensen, Jørgen 1997. Fra Bronze- till Jernalder - en kronologisk undersøgelse. Det Kongelige Nordiske Old-
skriftselskab: København.
Jensen, Jørgen 2003. Danmarks Oldtid. Ældre Jernalder 500 f.Kr.-400 e.Kr. Nørhaven Book: Viborg.
Johansen, Birgitta & Pettersson, Ing-Marie 1993. Från borg till bunker. Befästa anläggningar från för­
historisk och historisk tid. Fornlämningar i Sverige 2. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Borås.
Johansen, Birgitta 1997. Ormalur. Aspecter på tillvaro och landskap. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 14.
Johnson, Gregory A. 1982. Organizational Structure and Scalar Stress. In: Renfrew, Colin, Rowlands,
Michael J. & Seagraves, Barbara Abbott (eds.), Theory and Explanation in Archaeology. The South­
hampton Conference. Academic Press: New York: 389-421.
Jokipii, Mauno 2003: Ensimmäinen ristiretki Suomeen ja sen lähin jälkimaine. In: Kaitanen, Veijo,
Laukkanen, Esa & Uotila, Kari (eds.), Muinainen Kalanti ja sen naapurit. Talonpojan maailma rauta­
kaudelta keskiajalle. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 825. Hämeenlinna: 300-342.
Julku, Kyösti 1998. Suomen asutuksen jatkuvuuden ongelma. In: Julku, Kyösti & Wiik, Kalevi (eds.), The Roots
of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia I. Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae. Jyväskylä: 53-59.
Jungner, Högne 1979. Radiocarbon dates I. Radiocarbon dating laboratory. University of Helsinki.
Report no. 1.
Jungner, Högne 1995. Dating in Archaeology. Fennoscandia archaeologica XII: 37-38.
Jungner, Högne & Sonninen, Eloni 1983. Radiocarbon dates II. Radiocarbon dating laboratory. Univer-
sity of Helsinki. Report no. 2.
Jungner, Högne & Sonninen, Eloni 1989. Radiocarbon dates III. Radiocarbon
��������������������������������������
dating laboratory. Univer-
sity of Helsinki. Report no. 3.
Jungner, Högne & Sonninen, Eloni 1996. Radiocarbon dates IV. Dating laboratory. University of Helsin-
ki. Report no. 4.
Jutikkala, Eino 1945. Die Bevölkerung Finnlands in den Jahren 1721-49. Annales Academiœ Scientiarum
Fennicœ, B LV, 4.
Jutikkala, Eino 1972. Luentoja Suomen valtiojärjestyksen historiasta. Hämeenlinna.
Jäger, Klaus-Dieter & Ložek, Vojen 1982. Environmental conditions and land cultivation during the
Urnfield Bronze Age in central Europe. In: Harding, A. F. (ed.), Climatic Change in Later Pre­history.
Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh: 162-178.
Kakkuri, J. 1986. Newest results obtained in studying the Fennoscandian land uplift phenomenon.
Tectonophysics, 130: 327-331.
Kakkuri, J. 1992. Recent vertical crustal movement. In: Blundell, Derek, Freeman, Roy & Mueller,
Stephhan (eds.), A Continent Revealed. The European Geotraverse. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge: Atlas Map 6.
Kaliff, Anders 1995. Kulthus och lerkärl vittnar om kontakt over Östersjön. Populär Arkeologi 2/1995: 24-26.
Kaliff, Anders 1997. Grav och kultplats. Eskatologiska föreställningar under yngre bronsålder och äldre järn­
ålder i Östergötland. Aun 24. Uppsala.
Kaliff, Anders 2001. Gothic connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast
1000 BC – 500 AD. Occasional Papers in Archaeology 26.
Kaliff, Anders & Oestigaard, Terje 2004. Cultivating Corpses. A Comparative Approach to Dis­
embodied Mortuary Remains. Current Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 12: 83-104.
Kallberg, Ulla 1990. Var Purunpää en hamn under medeltiden? Maritimhistorisk konferens.Bottnisk
kontakt V. Raumo museum 9-11 februari 1990. Raumo: 67-71.
Kamppinen, Matti, Raivola, Petri, Jokinen, Pekka & Karlsson, Hasse 1995. Riskit yhteiskunnassa. Maalli­
kot ja asiantuntijat päätösten tekijöinä. Gaudeamus. Tampere.

406
Karlsson, Marita 1990. Fornlämningar i farledsmiljö. Åländsk Odling 1989: 91-98.
Katiskoski, Kaarlo 1992. The Kirkkomäki cemetery at Kaarina. Fennoscandia archaeologica IX: 75-89.
Katiskoski, Kaarlo 2004. The cemetery and the dwelling site Vaateranta in Taipalsaari, southeastern
Finland. Suomen Museo 2003: 81-125.
Kauhanen, Isto 1974. Porin Tuorsniemen verkkolöytö. Karhunhammas 1: 25-38.
Keeley, Lawrence H. 1996. War Before Civilization. Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford.
Kehusmaa, Aimo 1972. Kemijärven Neitilä 4. Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos. Moniste n:o 3.
Kehusmaa, Anu & Raike, Eeva 2004. Halikon Kirkkomäki ja vanhat kartat. Arkeologia NYT! Arkeologi NU!
1/2004: 16-17.
Keller, Christian 2003. Theoretical Aspects of Landscape Study. In: Collins, Timothy (ed.), Decoding
the Landscape. Contributions Towards a Synthesis of Thinking in Irish Studies on the Landscape. Centre
for Landscape Studies: Galway: 79-97.
Kepsu, Saulo 2005. Uuteen maahan. Helsingin ja Vantaan vanha asutus ja nimistö. Suomalaisen Kirjal­li­
suuden Seuran Toimituksia 1027.
Kerkkonen, Gunvor 1945. Västnyländsk kustbebyggelse under medeltiden. Helsingfors.
Keskitalo, Oiva 1979. Suomen nuoremman roomalaisen rautakauden löydöt. Helsingin yliopiston arkeo­
logian laitos. Moniste n:o 20.
Khotinsky, N. A. 1993. Anthropogenic changes in the landscapes of the Russian Plain during the
Holocene. Grana Suppl. 2: 70-74.
Kinnunen, Kari A. 2005. Susiluolan murtuilleet kivet selittää luonnollisimmin geologia. Tieteessä
tapahtuu 1/2005: 16-19.
Kirkinen, Tuija 1995. GIS in Modelling the Viking Age Environment in Taipalsaari, Southern Karelia.
Fennoscandia archaeologica XII: 65-70.
Kirkinen, Tuija 1996. Use of a Geographical Information System (GIS) in modeling the Late Iron Age
settlement in Eastern Finland. In: Kirkinen, Tuija (ed.), Environmental Studies in Eastern Finland.
Reports of the Ancient lake Saimaa Project. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology. No. 8: 19-61.
Kirkinen, Tuija 1999. The Influence of Modern Land-Use on the Formation of Archaeological Record.
Source critical problems of regional studies. In: Huurre, Matti (ed.), Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari
Siiriäinen. The Finnish Antiquarian Society, The Archaeological Society of Finland. Jyväskylä: 21-28.
Kirkinen, Tuija 2004. Epistemologinen ongelma: arkeologisen tiedon käsittely tietojärjestelmissä. Esi­
merkkinä ajoitustiedon käsittely paikkatietojärjestelmässä (GIS). In: Pesonen, Petro & Raike,
Eeva (eds.), Arkeologipäivät 2003. Suomen arkeologinen seura. Hamina: 61-73.
Kivikoski, Ella 1937a. Uusia pronssikauden löytöjä Suomesta. Suomen Museo XLIII: 53-60.
Kivikoski, Ella 1937b. Suomen vanhinta rautakautta. Suomen Museo XLIV: 23-46
Kivikoski, Ella 1939. Die Eisenzeit im Auraflussgebiet. Suomen Muinaismuisto���������������������
yhdistyksen Aikakaus-
kirja XLIII.
Kivikoski, Ella 1940. Svenskar i österled under 500-talet. Finskt Museum XLVI: 1-11.
Kivikoski, Ella 1946. Husgrunderna i Storhagen, Kulla, Finström. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen
Aikakauskirja XLVIII: 3.
Kivikoski, Ella 1947. Die Eisenzeit Finnlands. Bilderatlas und Text I. Porvoo.
Kivikoski, Ella 1951. Die Eisenzeit Finnlands. Bilderatlas und Text II. Porvoo.
Kivikoski, Ella 1955. Skandinavisches in der Römischen Eisenzeit Finnlands. Acta Archaeologica Vol.
XXV: 151-170.
Kivikoski, Ella 1961. Suomen esihistoria. Porvoo.
Kivikoski, Ella 1971. Turun seudun esihistoria kivikaudesta noin vuoteen 1150. In: Turun kaupungin
historia kivikaudesta vuoteen 1366: 1-114.

407
Kivikoski, Ella 1973. Die Eisenzeit Finnlands. Bildwerk und Text. Neuausgabe. Helsinki.
Klang, Lennart 1981. Fornminnesinventering och agrarhistoria. Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift Nr 2: 53-61.
Knaapinen, M. A 1935. Piikkiön pitäjä. Kotiseutukirja nykyisille ja entisille piikkiöläisille. Turku.
Knapp, Bernard A. 1992. Archaeology and Annales: time, space and change. In: Knapp, Bernard A.
(ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 133-142.
Knapp, Bernard A. & Ashmore, Wendy 1999. Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptual-
ized, Ideational. In: Ashmore, Wendy & Knapp, Bernard A. (eds.), Archaeologies of Landscape.
Contemporary Perspectives. Blackwell: Oxford: 1-30.
Koivisto, Onni & Saariluoma, Vilho 1957. Kotipitäjäni Muurla. Hämeenlinna.
Konsa, Marge, Lang, Valter, Vimberg, Karin & Kelder, Ilmar 2006. Ring-wall enclosure of Lipa in Pre-
historic Southern Harjumaa. In: Tamla, Ülle (ed.), Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis 2005. Muin-
suskaitseamet. Tallinn: 53-60.
Korhonen, Arvi 1923. Vakkalaitos. Yhteiskuntahistoriallinen tutkimus. Historiallisia tutkimuksia VI.
Korteniemi, Markku 2002. Kolmen kuoppajäänteen ajoituksesta ja funktiosta Limingan Rantakylän
rautakautisella asuinpaikalla. In: Halinen, Petri, Kankaanpää, Raimo & Pesonen, Petro (eds.),
Arkeologiapäivät 2001. Kronologia. Suomen arkeologinen seura. Vantaa: 62-77.
Kosmenko, M. G. & Manjuhin, I. S. 1999. Ancient iron production in Karelia. Fennoscandia archaeolo­
gica XVI: 31-46.
Kossinna, Gustaf 1911. Die Herkunft der Germanen Zur Methode der Siedlungsarchaeologie. Würzburg.
Kosse, Krisztina 1990. Group Size and Societal Complexity: Thresholds in the Long-Term Memory.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9: 275-303.
Kotivuori, Hannu 1992. Dwelling-site finds from the Middle Iron Age fieldwork at Kalaschabrännan
in Maalahti, Southern Ostrobothnia 1987-1989. Fennoscandia archaeologica IX: 57-74.
Kotivuori, Hannu 1993. Pohjanlahden rannikon kiveliöt muinaisen toiminnan tyyssijoina. In: Purhonen,
Paula (ed.), Lapinraunioita ja hiidenkiukaita. Kansallismuseossa 17.10.1991 pidetyn ”Epämääräisiä kivi­
röykkiöitä” koskevan seminaarin alustukset. Museovirasto. Arkeologian osasto. Julkaisu N:o 3: 17-30.
Kotivuori, Hannu 1996. Pyytäjistä kaskenraivaajiksi. Rovaniemen asutus n. 6000 eKr – 1300 jKr. In:
Saarnisto, Matti, Kotivuori, Hannu, Vahtola, Jouko & Enbuske, Matti, Kotatulilta savupirtin suo­
jaan. Rovaniemen historia vuoteen 1721. Jyväskylä: 34-125.
Kriiska, Aivar 1995. Archäologische Ausgrabungen auf dem Standort der ehemaligen Steinzeitsied-
lung Kõpu I (Ristipõllu). Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Humanitaar- ja Sotsiaalteadused. 1995,
44, 4: 410-416.
Kriiska, Aivar 1996a. Archaeological studies on the Kõpu peninsula. Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimeti­
sed. Humanitaar- ja Sotsiaalteadused. 1996, 45, 4: 398-409.
Kriiska, Aivar 1996b. Viron rannikkoalueen asutus ja pyyntikulttuurin erikoistuminen kivikaudella.
Muinaistutkija 4/1996: 1-6.
Kriiska, Aivar 1998. Vaibla kivikirves. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri 2: 154-157.
Kriiska, Aivar 2000. Corded Ware Culture Sites in North-Eastern Estonia. In: De temporibus antiquis­
simus ad honorem Lembit Janits. Muinasaja teadus 8: 59-79.
Kriiska, Aivar 2002. Lääne-Eesti saarte asustamine ja püsielanikkonna kujunemine. In: Lang, Valter
(ed.), Keskus – tagama – ääreala. Uurimusi asutushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis.
Muinasaja teadus 11: 29-54.
Kriiska, Aivar, Lõugas, Lembi & Saluäär, Ulla 1998. Archaeological excavations of the Stone Age
s­ett­lement site and ruin of the stone cist grave of the Early Metal Age in Kaseküla. In: Tamla, Ülle
(ed.), Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis 1997. Muinsuskaitseinspektsioon. Tallinn: 30-43.
Kriiska, Aivar & Saluäär, Ulla 2000. Archaeological fieldwork on the island of Ruhnu. In: Tamla, Ülle
(ed.), Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis 1999. Muinsuskaitseinspektsioon. Tallinn: 18-28.

408
Kriiska, Aivar & Tvauri, Andres 2002. Eesti muinasaeg. Avita.
Krohn, Kaarle 1910. Ukon vakat. Kotiseutu 1910: 63-64.
Kukkonen, Ilkka 1985. Changes in settlement and landscape caused by early land use in SW Finland.
In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on the Application of Scientific Methods in Archaeology.
Iskos 5: 441.
Kulikauskas, P. 1961. Gimininės santvarkos irimo laikotarpis. In: Kulikauskas, P., Kulikauskienė, R. &
Tautavičius, A., Lietuovos archeologijos bruožai. Vilnius: 144-268.
Kuna, Martin 1995. Pre-historic prehistory. In: Kuna, Martin & Venclová, Natalie (eds.), Whither Ar­
chaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Praha: 41-51.
Kuz´minych, S. V. 1996. Osteuropäische und Fennoscandische Tüllenbeile des Mälartyps: ein Rätsel
der Archäologie. Fennoscandia archaeologica XIII: 3-27.
Künnap, Ago & Lang, Valter 2000. Reviews: Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen
mukaan, Helsinki 1999 (Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153. Societas
���������������
Scien-
tiarum Fennica). Linguistica Uralica XXXVI: 55-61.
Kääriäinen, E. 1963. Land uplift in Finland computed by the aid of precise levellings. Fennia 89, N:o 1: 15-19.
Königsson, L.-K. & Possnert, G. & Hammar, T. 1997. Changes in the Landscape Development at
Novgorod. Tor Vol. 29: 353-387.
Laakso, Ville 2003. Papinniemi i Uukuniemi och andra ortodoxa gravfält i östra Finland. Utgångs-
punkter och aktuell forskningsproblematik. Hikuin 30: 139-154.
Lahelma, Antti & Sipilä, Joonas 2004. Pasifistiset pyyntikulttuurit? Sodan paradigmateoria ja kivi­
kauden Suomi. Muinaistutkija 4/2004: 2-22.
Lahtiperä, Pirjo 1970. Metallikautinen asutus Kokemäenjoen suussa II. Luuaineiston analyysi. Pori.
Landin, Maria & Rönnby, Johan 2003. Tomtningar i utskärgården från yngre järnåldern. Arkeologiska
undersökningar på Landsort, Torö sn, Södermanland. Södertörns Högskola. Research Reports 6/2002.
Huddinge.
Lang, Valter 1990. Über die formierung der frühen Tarandgräber im östlichen Ostseegebiet. Congres­
sus Septimus Internationalis Fenno-Ugristarum Debrecen 27.VIII.-2.IX.1990. Sessiones Sectionum
Dissertationes Historica, Archaeologica et Anthropologica. Debrecen: 308-313.
Lang, Valter 1991. Ühe savinõutüübi ajaloost Loode-Eestis. Muinasaja teadus I: 45-63.
Lang, Valter 1992. Eesti labidaspeaga luunõelte dateerimisest. Stilus 1: 8-32.
Lang, Valter 1994a. Fossil fields at Saha-Loo. Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Humanitaar- ja sotsi­
aalteadused 43, 1: 22-26.
Lang, Valter 1994b. Excavations in ancient fields of Saha-Loo and Proosa near Tallinn. Eesti Teaduste
Akadeemia Toimetised. Humanitaar- ja sotsiaalteadused 43, 4: 379-381.
Lang, Valter 1995a. A Pre-Roman tarand-grave and late medieval fossil fields of Ilmandu, NW
Es­to­nia. Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Humanitaar- ja sotsiaalteadused 44, 4: 429-435.
Lang, Valter 1995b. Die Früheisenzeitliche Gesellschaft Im Gebiet Der Estnischen Steingräber. In:
Kazakevičius, Vytautas & Sidrys, Raymond (eds.), Archaeologia Baltica. Vilnius: 107-120.
Lang, Valter 1995c. The Hill-fort of Iru. In: Jansson, Ingmar (ed.), Archaeology East and West of the
Baltic. Papers from the Second Estonian-Swedish Archaeological Symposium. Sigtuna, May 1991. The-
ses and Papers in Archaeology N.S. A 7. Stockholm: 53-60.
Lang, Valter 1996. Muistne Rävala. Muistised, kronoloogia ja maaviljelusliku asutuse kujunemine Loode-Ees­
tis, eriti Pirita jõe alamjooksu piirkonnas. Muinasaja teadus 4.
Lang, Valter 1998. Some aspects of the Corded Ware Culture east of the Baltic Sea. In: Julku, Kyösti &
Wiik, Kalevi (eds.), The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia I. Societas Historiae
Fenno-Ugricae. Jyväskylä: 84-104.

409
Lang, Valter 1999a. Kultuurmaastikku luues. Essee maastiku religioossest ja sümboliseeritud kor-
raldusest. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri 3, 1: 63-85.
Lang, Valter 1999b. Early Farming in the Eastern Baltic Region and Finland: Some Introductory Re-
marks. In: Miller, U., Hackens, T., Lang, V., Raukas, A. and Hicks, S. (eds.), Environmental and
Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic Region. Pact 57: 269-273.
Lang, Valter 1999c. The Introduction and Early History of Farming in Estonia, as Revealed by Archae-
ological Material. In: Miller, U., Hackens, T., Lang, V., Raukas, A. and Hicks, S. (eds.), Environ-
mental and Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic Region. Pact 57: 325-338.
Lang, Valter 1999d. Pre-Christian History of Farming in the Eastern Baltic Region and Finland: A
Synthesis. In: Miller, U., Hackens, T., Lang, V., Raukas, A. and Hicks, S. (eds.), Environmental
and Cultural History of the Eastern Baltic Region. Pact 57: 359-372.
Lang, Valter 1999e. Kenneth Gustavsson, Otterböte. New Light on a Bronze Age Site in the Baltic.
Theses and Papers in Archaeology B:4. Stockholm University 1997, 141 p. + 8 appendices.
Fenno­scandia archaeologica XVI: 81–84.
Lang, Valter 2000a. Keskusest ääremaaks. Viljelusmajandusliku asutuse kujunemine ja areng Vihasoo-Palmse
piirkonnas Virumaal. Muinasaja teadus 7.
Lang, Valter 2000b. Varased kangurkalmed Eestis. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri 4, 1: 3-20.
Lang, Valter 2002a. On the Formation of Power Centres in Estonia. An introduction. In: Lang, Valter
(ed.), Keskus – tagama – ääreala. Uurimusi asutushierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. Mui-
nasaja teadus 11: 17-26.
Lang., Valter 2002b. Vakus ja linnusepiirkond Eestis. Lisandeid muistse haldusstruktuuri uurimisele
peamiselt Harjumaa näitel. In: Lang, Valter (ed.), Keskus – tagama – ääreala. Uurimusi asutus­
hierarhia ja võimukeskuste kujunemisest Eestis. Muinasaja teadus 11: 125-168.
Lang, Valter 2003. From Centre to Periphery. Establishment and History of the Agricultural Settle-
ment in the Vihasoo-Palmse Area (Virumaa, North Estonia). Acta Archaeologica vol. 74: 123-188.
Lang, Valter 2006a. Late Bronze Age and Pre-Roman Iron Age pottery styles in Estonia. In: Suhonen,
Mervi (ed.), Arkeologian lumoa synkkyyteen. Artikkeleita Christian Carpelanin juhlapäiväksi. Lighting
the darkness – the attraction of archaeology. Papers in honour of Christian Carpelan. Helsinki: 122-136.
Lang, Valter 2006b. Varased tarandkalmed Eestis. In: Etnos ja Kultuur. Uurimusi Silvia Laulu auks. Mui-
nasaja teadus 18: 53-78.
Lang, Valter 2007a. Baltimaade pronksi- ja rauaaeg. Tartu Ülikooli Kirjastus.
Lang, Valter 2007b. The Bronze and Early Iron Ages in Estonia. Estonian Archaeology 3. Tartu University Press.
Lang, Valter & Konsa, Marge 1997. Two late neolithic to Early Iron Age settlement sites at Ilumäe,
North Estonia. In: Tamla, Ülle (ed.), Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis 1997. Muinsuskaitse­inspektsioon.
Tallinn: 65-77.
Lang, Valter & Kriiska, Aivar 2001. Eesti esiaja periodiseering ja kronoloogia. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri
5, 2: 83-109.
Lang, Valter, Kaldre, Helena & Laneman, Margot 2005a. Fossil fields at Saha-Loo, North Estonia, as
revealed by new investigations. In: Tamla, Ülle (ed.), Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis 2004. Muinsus­
kaitseamet. Tallinn: 117-126.
Lang, Valter, Laneman, Margot, Kaldre, Helena, Konsa, Marge & Tvauri, Andres 2005b. From the
Early Pre-Roman Iron Age to the early modern times: new investigations at Keava. In: Tamla,
Ülle (ed.), Arheoloogilised välitööd Eestis 2004. Muinsuskaitseamet. Tallinn: 45-58.
Lang, Valter & Ligi, Priit 1991. Muistsed kalmed ajaloolise demograafia allikana. Muinasaja teadus I:
216-235.
Larsson, Lars 2000. Human response to natural resources since the last glaciation. In: Sandgren, Per (ed.),
Environmental changes in Fennoscandia during the Late Quaternary. LUNDQUA Report 37: 59-68.

410
Larsson, Thomas B. 1993a. Östersjökontakter
���������������������������������������������������������������������
under yngre bronsålder - en diskussion med utgångs-
punkt från fynden från Vistad i Östergötland. In: Forsberg, Lars & Larsson, Thomas B. (eds.),
Ekonomi och näringsformer i nordisk bronsålder. Rapport från det 6:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet,
Nämforsen 1990. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 3: 127-149.
Larsson, Thomas B. 1993b. Vistad. Kring en befäst gård i Östergötland och östersjökontakter under yngre
bronsålder. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis Umensis 4.
Larsson, Thomas B. & Hulthén, Birgitta 2004. Vistad ’88 Revisited. Ceramological Analyses and
Lusatian Connections. Archaeology and Environment 17.
Laukkanen, Esa & Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 1987. Varhaisrautakauden jäljillä Turun Hannunniitussa.
ABOA. Turun maakuntamuseo, vuosikirja 49/1985: 40-59.
Laul, S. 1962. Jaagupi tarandkalme Elva rajoonis. In: Moora, H. (ed.), Muistsed kalmed ja aarded. Arheo­
loogiline kogumik II. Tallinn: 13-57.
Laul, Silvia & Tõnisson, Evald 1991. Muitsete sirpide ja vikatite kujunemisloost Eestis. Muinasaja teadus I: 75-91.
Laurén, Juha 1993. Kenttähavaintoja Pohjanpitäjänlahden röykkiöistä. In: Purhonen, Paula (ed.),
Lapin­­raunioita ja hiidenkiukaita. Kansallismuseossa 17.10.1991 pidetyn ”Epämääräisiä kiviröykkiöitä”
koskevan seminaarin alustukset. Museovirasto. Arkeologian osasto. Julkaisu N:o 3: 31-36.
Lavento, Mika 1996. Varhaista raudanvalmistusta Ristiinassa – muutamia huomioita Kitulansuon
raudansulatusuunista ja siihen liittyvästä keramiikasta. Sihti 4: 64-75.
Lavento, Mika 1999. An iron furnace from the Early Metal Period at Kitulansuo in Ristiina, in the
southern part of the Lake Saimaa Water System. Fennoscandia archaeologica XVI: 75-80.
Lavento, Mika 2000. Some Viewpoints on Early Textile Ceramics in the Baltic Countries, Russia and
Finland. In: De temporibus antiquissimus ad honorem Lembit Janits. Muinasaja teadus 8: 59-79.
Lavento, Mika 2001. Textile Ceramics in Finland and on the Karelian Isthmus. Nine Variations and Fugue on
a Theme of C. F. Meinander. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 109.
Lavento, Mika 2003. Book review. Tapani Tuovinen, The Burial Cairns and the Landscape in the Archi­
pelago of Åboland, SW Finland, in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Acta Universitatis Ouluen-
sis, B Humaniora 46 (2002), 315 p. Fennoscandia archaeologica XX: 121-126.
Lavento, Mika 2004a. Chronology without types and cultures? Interpreting the prehistory of Kainuu
on the basis of radiocarbon dates. In: Uino, Pirjo (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002. Dating
����������������
and Chro­
nology. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja N:o 10: 61-74.
Lavento, Mika 2004b. Transition from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Dating the beginning of the
Bronze Age and the Early Metal Period in Finland. In: Problemy hronologii i étnokulturnyh vzaimo­
dejstvij i neolite Evrazii. Rossijskaja Akademija Nauk: Sankt-Peterburg: 308-319.
Lavento, Mika, Huttunen, Raija-Liisa & Huttunen, Antti 2004: Palynological Investigations at the
Ruhtinansalmi Dwelling-site Complex in Suomussalmi. Antropogenic Pollen Evidence for a
Hunter-gatherer Economy? Iskos 13: 91-101.
Lehto, Ture 1959. Pargasbygdens historiska öden intill 1865. Pargasbygdens historia II. Åbo.
Lehtonen, Hannele & Uotila, Kari 2005. Eurajoen Liinmaan linnan tutkimukset kesällä 2004. SKAS
1/2005: 36-39.
Lehtonen, Kaisa 2000. Iron Age settlement in the river Aurajoki valley: its pattern and relation to the
settlement of historic times. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Sites and settlement. Turku: 45-83.
Lehtonen, Kaisa 2005. Eurajoen Etukämppä – hylkeenpyytäjien ja kalastajien tukikohta muinaisen
Panelianlahden rannalla. In: Ranta, Helena (ed.), Kentältä poimittua 6. Kirjoitelmia arkeologian alal­
ta. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja N:o 11: 5-18.
Lehtosalo-Hilander, Pirkko-Liisa 1984. Keski- ja myöhäisrautakausi. Suomen historia 1. Espoo: 250-405.
Lehtosalo-Hilander, Pirkko-Liisa 1999. Dates. In: Huurre, Matti (ed.), Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari Sii­
riäinen. The Finnish Antiquarian Society, The Archaeological Society of Finland. Jyväskylä: 39-43.

411
Lehtosalo-Hilander, Pirkko-Liisa 2000. Kalastajista kauppanaisiin. Euran esihistoria. Euran kunta. Vammala.
Lempiäinen, Terttu 1996. Liedon Rähälän keskiaikaisen asuinpaikan viljavarasto – lisää tietoa Aura-
jokilaakson viljanviljelystä. In: Ranta, Helena (ed.), Kentältä Poimittua 3. Kirjoitelmia arkeologian
alalta. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja N:o 6: 110-117.
Lempiäinen, Terttu 1999a. Hiiltyneet viljanjyvät ja maanviljelyn alku Suomessa. In: Fogelberg, Paul
(ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till kännedom av Fin-
lands natur och folk 153: 152-154.
Lempiäinen, Terttu 1999b. Rapolan makrofossiilitutkimukset – Etelä-Hämeen ja Suomen viljely­his­
toriaa. Masunni 3: 109-119.
Lempiäinen, Terttu 2005. Ruis rautakauden Suomessa ja Katariinan Kirkkomäen ruisolkipunos. In:
Immonen, Visa & Haimila, Miikka (eds.), Mustaa valkoisella. Ystäväkirja arkeologian lehtori Kristii­
na Korkeakoski-Väisäselle. Turun yliopisto, arkeologia. Vantaa: 110-118.
Lempiäinen, Terttu 2006. Kasvimakrofossiilitutkimuksen viimeiset vuosikymmenet. SKAS 1/2006: 32-44.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1934. Herrankartanon silmäsolki. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja XL: 69-74.
Lesell, Kreetta 2007. Rauma Hevossuonmäki – missä ovat röykkiön rajat? In: Mökkönen, Teemu &
Seppänen, Sirkka-Liisa (eds.), Arkeologipäivät 2006. Suomen arkeologinen seura. Hamina: 63-75.
Levinsen, Karin 1984. Jernets introduktion i Danmark. KUML 1982-83: 153-168.
Levinsen, Karin Tweddell 1989. The Introduction of iron in Denmark. In: Sørensen, Marie Louise Stig
& Thomas, Roger (eds.), The Bronze Age - Iron Age Transition in Europe. Aspects of continuity and
change in European societies c. 1200 to 500 B.C. BAR International Series 483(ii): 440-456.
Liedgren, Lars 1989. Boplatsundersökningen på Kalaschabrännan: Preliminära aspekter på bebyggel-
sen. Studia Archaeologica Ostrobotniesia 1988: 31-56.
Liedgren, Lars 1991. Merovingertida bebyggelselämningar på Kalaschabrännan I Malax. In: Baudou,
Evert, Engelmark, Roger, Liedgren, Lars, Segerström, Ulf & Wallin, Jan-Erik, Järnåldersbygd i
Ös­ter­botten. En ekologisk-arkeologisk studie av bosättningskontinuitet och resursutnyttjande. Acta Anti-
qua Ostrobotniensia 2: 103-148.
Ligi, Priit 1993. Sveriges och Estlands kontakter under förhistorisk tid. Järnålder och vikingatid. In:
Dahlberg, Anne-Marie & Tamla, Toomas (eds.), Eesti ja Rootsi. Estland och Sverige. Tallinn: 14-20.
Lindeman, Gundela 1985. Förhistoriska aggressionsstrukturer i det västsvenska landskapet. GOTARC.
Series B. Gothenburg Archaeological Theses No 2.
Lindholm, Markus, Eronen, Matti, Meriläinen, Jouko & Zetterberg, Pentti 1995. A Tree-Ring Record of
Past Summer Temperatures in Northern Finnish Lapland. Fennoscandia archaeologica XII: 95-101.
Lindquist, Sven-Olof 1968. Det förhistoriska kulturlandskapet i östra Östergötland. Hallebyundersökning-
en I. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studies in North-European Archaeology 2.
Lindqvist, Christian 1988. A carbonized cereal grain (Hordeum sp.) and faunal remains of e.g. Harp
Seal (Phoca groenlandica), cod (Gadus morhua) and herring (Clupea harengus), from the Kolsvidja
upper Stone Age habitation site on Åland. Finskt Museum 1988: 5-40.
Litzen, Veikko 1977. Om socknen. Historisk tidskrift för Finland 1977: 324-335.
Lõugas, Lembi 1994. Subfossil vertebrate fauna of Asva site, Saaremaa. Mammals. Eesti Arheoloo­gia­
seltsi Teated 1994 (1). Stilus 5: 71-93.
Lõugas, Lembi 1997. Post-glacial development of vertebrate fauna in Estonian water bodies. Dissertationes
Biologicae Universitatis Tartuensis. No 32. Tartu University Press: Tartu.
Lõugas, Lembi, Lidén, Kerstin & Nelson, D. Erle 1996. ��������������������������������������������������
Resource utilisation along the Estonian coast dur-
ing the Stone Age. In: Hackens, T., Hicks, S., Lang, V., Miller, U. & Saarse, L. (eds.), Coastal Estonia:
Recent Advances in Environmental and Cultural History. Pact 51. Rixensart. Belgium: 399-420.
Lõugas, Vello 1971. Über die Typologie und Chronologie der ältesten Hirtenstabnadeln des Ostbalti-
kums. Suomen Museo 1971: 20-37.

412
Lõugas, Vello 1985. Über die Beziehungen zwischen Skandinavien und Ostbaltikum in der Bronze-
und frühen Eisenzeit. In: Loit, Aleksander & Selirand, Jüri (eds.), Die Verbindungen zwischen Skan­
dinavien und Ostbaltikum aufgrund der archäologischen Quellenmaterialen. I. Symposium der sowjet­
estnischen und schwedischen Archäologen. Tallinn 12.-15. Oktober 1982. Acta Universitatis Stockhol-
miensis. Studia Baltica Stockholmiensia 1: 51-60.
Lõugas, Vello 1991. Eesti vanimatest oimuehetest. Muinasaja teadus I: 66-74.
Lõugas, Vello & Mägi-Lõugas, Marika 1994a. Investigation of ancient monuments at Pöide. Eesti
Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Humanitaar- ja sotsiaalteadused 43, 1: 27-33.
Lõugas, Vello & Mägi-Lõugas, Marika 1994b. Excavations at Pöide stronghold have been finished.
Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Humanitaar- ja sotsiaalteadused 43, 4: 390-391.
Lõugas, Vello & Selirand, Jüri 1989. Arheoloogia Eestimaa teedel. Teine, parandatud ja täiendatud trükk.
Tallinn.
Loze, Ilze 1997a. Zemkopības Latvijas teritorijā (Lubāna ezera baseins). Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XIX: 25-41.
Loze, Ilze 1997b. Indo-Europeans in the eastern Baltic in the view of an archaeologist. Humanities and
Social Sciences Latvia: 19-35.
Lucenius, Jenni 2004. Keramik och fyndkontekster på Svinvallen. In: Stenbäck, Niklas (ed.), Från
strand till strand. Besök i åländsk stenålder. Aktuell åländsk stenåldersforskning 2004. Ålands landskaps­
regering: Museibyrån. Mariehamn: 79-88.
Luho, Ville 1954. Porin verkkolöytö. Suomen Museo LXI: 5-27.
Luoto, Jukka 1980. Bronsålderns befästa boplatser ur finskt perspektiv. In: Thrane, Henrik (ed.),
Bronce­­alderbebyggelse i Norden. Beretning fra det andet nordiske symposium for broncealderforskning.
Odense 9.-11. april 1980. Skrifter fra historisk institut, Odense Universitet, nr. 28: 59-66.
Luoto, Jukka 1984. Liedon Vanhalinnan mäkilinna. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 87.
Luoto, Jukka 1985. Archaeological excavations at Spurila, 1982-1983. Iskos 5: 451-459.
Luoto, Jukka 1987. Problem inom Finlands mellanneolitikum. Finskt Museum 1986: 9-21.
Luoto, Jukka 1988. Esihistoria. Liedon historia 1. Turku: 59-192.
Luoto, Jukka 1989. Piikkiön esihistoria. Piikkiön historia 1. Jyväskylä: 14-77.
Luoto, Jukka 1990a. Paimion Nakolinna. Suomen Museo 1990: 45-74.
Luoto, Jukka 1990b. Esihistorian aika. In: Luoto, Jukka & Alifrosti, Kari, Sauvon Historia I: 11-68.
Luoto, Jukka 1992. Muolaan paimensauvaneula. Suomen Museo 1991: 77-90.
Luoto, Jukka 1993. Metallianalyysejä pronssi- ja tinaesineistä. Faravid. Pohjois-Suomen Historiallisen
Yhdistyksen Vuosikirja XVI: 377-384.
Luoto, Jukka 1996. Maanviljelyselinkeinot Etelä-Karjalassa 3000 BC – AD 1500. Sihti 4: 37-57.
Luoto, Jukka 1999. Sääksmäen Rapola – Hämeen muinaislinnojen ongelma. Masunni. Kirjoituksia
Tam­pereelta ja Pirkanmaalta 3: 121-130.
Luoto, Jukka 2001. Suomen kivikauden balttilaisia kontakteja. Suomen Museo 2000: 15-23.
Luoto, Jukka 2003. Muinaislinnat, milloin ja mihin tarkoitukseen? In: Kaitanen, Veijo, Laukkanen, Esa
& Uotila, Kari (eds.), Muinainen Kalanti ja sen naapurit. Talonpojan maailma rautakaudelta keski­ajalle.
Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 825. Hämeenlinna: 171-184.
Luoto, Jukka 2004. Hiukkasaari Vammala – Tyrvää. Linnoitetun asuinpaikan tutkimus. Tyrvään seudun
Kotiseutuyhdistyksen julkaisu LXXXVI.
Luoto, Jukka & Asplund, Henrik 1986. Två halsringar med halvklotformiga ändknoppar från Spurila
i Pemar (Paimio). Iskos 6: 67-76.
Luoto, Jukka & Pihlman, Aki 1980. Ala-Satakunnan keskiaikaisten linnojen arkeologisesta taustasta.
Turun historiallinen arkisto 34: 37-51.
Luoto, Jukka, Pärssinen, Martti & Seppä-Heikka, Merja 1983. Grain impressions in ceramics from
Risti­mäki, Vammala, Finland. Finskt Museum 1981: 5-33.

413
Lähdesmäki, Ulla 1983. Perniön Lemun kylän Lehmihaan varhaismetallikautista keramiikkaa.
Karhunhammas 7: 96-104.
Lähdesmäki, Ulla 1987. Perniö, Lemu, Lehmihaka. Varhaismetallikautisen hautaraunioryhmän ja
asuinpaikan tutkimukset vuosina 1979-1982. Karhunhammas 11: 1-52.
Maaranen, Päivi 2000. Röykkiöitä Etelä-Saimaalta ja Uudeltamaalta - hautoja ja viljelyskivikasoja. In:
Maaranen, Päivi & Kirkinen, Tuija (eds.), Arkeologinen inventointi. Opas inventoinnin suunnitte­
luun ja toteuttamiseen. Museovirasto. Helsinki: 185-191.
Maldre, Liina 1998. Hobune Eestit muinas- ja keskajal. In: Loodus, inimene ja tehnoloogia. Interdist-
siplinaarseid uurimusi arheoloogias. Muinasaja teadus 5: 201-220.
Maldre, Liina 1999. Osteological Evidence for the Introduction of Farming in Estonia. In: Miller, U.,
Hackens, T., Lang, V., Raukas, A. and Hicks, S. (eds.), Environmental and Cultural History of the
Eastern Baltic Region. Pact 57: 319-323.
Malonaitis, Arvydas 2005. Geležiniai pleišto pavidalo kirviai Lietuvoje. Lietuvos archeologija 27: 23-28.
Mandel, M. 1978. Über die Ausgrabungen der Tarandgräber von Poanse. Eesti NSV teaduste akadeemia
toimetised. 27. köide. Ühiskonnateadused. 1978, Nr. 1: 78-80.
Mandel, Mati 1993. Läänemaa esiajalugu. Tallinn.
Manker, Ernst 1971. Fennoskandias fornskidor. Preliminär rapport från en inventering. Fornvännen
1971/2: 77-91.
Marciniak, Arkadiusz 1995. Archaeology and palaeodemography: expectations and limitations. In:
Kuna, Martin & Venclová, Natalie (eds.), Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustup­
ný. Praha: 110-117.
Markus, Felicia 2002. Field investigations in Einbi, an Estonian Swedish village. Eesti Arheoloogia Aja­
kiri 6, 2: 109-133.
Markus, Felicia 2004a. The Baltic Sea. Barrier or Medium of Contacts. In: Bolin, Hans (ed.), The Inter­
play of Past and Present. Papers from a session held at the 9th annual EAA meeting in St. Petersburg 2003.
Södertörn Archaeological Studies 1: 58-68.
Markus, Felicia 2004b. Living on Another Shore. Early Scandinavian Settlement on the North-Western Esto­
nian Coast. Occasional Papers in Archaeology 36.
Matiskainen, H. 1982. Anthropogenic interpretation of the Isokylä area, Salo, South-West Finland. In:
Second Nordic conference on the application of scientific methods in archaeology. Pact 7/1982: 129-136.
Matiskainen, Heikki 1998. Early contacts and relations between the Indo-European and Fenno-Ugrian
Peoples - Nationalism, Politics and Archaeology. In: Julku, Kyösti & Wiik, Kalevi (eds.), The Roots of
Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia I. Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae. Jyväskylä: 105-119.
Matiskainen, Heikki & Ruohonen, Juha 2004. Esihistorian pauloissa. Hämeenlinna.
McGuire, Randall H. 1983. Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and Heterogeneity. In:
Schiffer, Michael B. (ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Volume 6. Academic
Press: New York: 91-142.
Meinander, C. F. 1949. Malmsby – Böle – Gesterby. En arkeologisk fyndtrio från östra Nyland.
Nor­denskiöld-samfundets tidskrift IX: 101-105.
Meinander, C. F. 1950. Etelä-Pohjanmaan historia I. Esihistoria. Etelä-Pohjanmaan Historiatoimikunta: Helsinki.
Meinander, C. F. 1954a. Die Kiukaiskultur. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 53.
Meinander, C. F. 1954b. Die Bronzezeit in Finnland. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 54.
Meinander, C. F. 1961. De subneolitiska kulturgrupperna i norra Europa. Societas Scientiarum Fennica
Årsbok – Vuosikirja XXXIX B N:o 4.
Meinander, C .F. 1969. Dåvits. En essä om förromersk järnålder. Finskt Museum 1969: 27-69.
Meinander, C.F. 1980. The Finnish society during the 8th-12th centuries. Fenno-ugri et slavi 1978.
Hel­singin yliopiston arkeologian laitos. Moniste n:o 22: 7-13.

414
Meinander, C. F. 1983. Om svenskarnes inflyttningar till Finland. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 3, 1983:
229-251.
Meinander C. F. 1984a. Om introduktionen av sädesodling i Finland. Finskt Museum 1983: 5-20.
Meinander C. F. 1984b. Kivikautemme väestöhistoria. In: Åström, Sven-Erik (ed.), Suomen väestön esi­
historialliset juuret. �������������������������������������������������������������������������
Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk. Utgivna av Finska Veten-
skaps-Societeten H. 131: 21-48.
Meinander C. F. 1984c. Myrsbacka. In: Festskrift tillägnad Matts Dreijer på hans 80-årsdag 31.01.1981.
Ålands folkminnesförbund. Bygdeserie nr 5: 183-192.
Meinander, C. F. 1985. Akozino, Achmylovo och mälaryxorna. Finskt Museum 1985: 15-34.
Meinander, C. F. 1986. Die Ethnogenese der Finno-Ugrier aus der Sicht der Vor- und Frühgeschichte.
In: Bernhard, Wolfram & Kandler-Pálsson, Anneliese (eds.), Ethnogenese europäischer Völker. Aus
der Sicht der Anthropologie und Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Gustav Fischer Verlag: Stuttgart: 363-373.
Meinander, Carl Fredrik 1987. De arkeologiska förutsättningarna. In: Klassiska problem inom finlands­
svensk ortnamnsforskning. Svenska litteratursällskapets jubileumssymposium på Hanaholmen 4 - 6 okto­
ber 1985. Studier i nordisk filologi 67; Skrifter utgivna av Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland nr
539. Hangö: 17-19.
Melander, K. R. 1932. Muutamia tietoja Ukon ja maanhaltijan palvonnasta meillä entisaikoina. Virit­
täjä 1932: 37-44.
Merkevičius, Algimantas & Nemickienė, Rėda 2003. Senųjų žemdirbystės laukų tyrnėjimai šiaurės
vakarų Lietuvoje. Archaeologia Lituana 4: 186-198.
Miettinen, Mirja 1980. Forntid i Pörtom. Vasa.
Miettinen, Mirja 1982. Den förhistoriska tiden i Petalax. Petalax historia I. Vasa: 7-78.
Miettinen, Mirja 1986. An early Iron Age cairn from Frönäsudden, southern Ostrobothnia. Fennoscan­
dia archaeologica III: 59-66.
Miettinen, Mirja 1989. Den österbottniska kustbosättningen under tidig metallålder ca 1000 BC - 200
AD. Sammanfattning av undersökningar på 1970- och 1980-talen. Bottnisk kontakt IV: 99-107.
Miettinen, Mirja 1994a. Tidig metallålder i Österbottens kustland: Nya arkeologiska forskningsresultat. In:
Järnåldern i Mittnorden. Ett symposium kring nya arkeologiska och ekologiska forskningsrön. Vasa: 155-172.
Miettinen, Mirja 1994b. Recent discoveries of eastern Bronze Age materials from Jepua on the Gulf of
Bothnia. Fennoscandia archaeologica XI: 3-12.
Miettinen, Mirja 1998. Laihian historia I. Esihistoria. Jyväskylä.
Miettinen, Mirja & Vuorela, Irmeli 1988. Archaeological and palynological studies of the agricultural
history of Vörå and Malax, Southern Ostrobothnia. Fennoscandia archaeologica V: 47-68.
Miettinen, Timo 1998. Kymenlaakson esihistoriaa. Kymenlaakson maakuntamuseon julkaisuja no 26.
Mignon, Molly Raymond 1993. Dictionary of concepts in archaeology. Reference Sources for the Social
Sciences and Humanities, Number 13. Greenwood Press: Westport, Connecticut.
Mikkola, Esa 1999. Halikonjokilaakson rautakautiset muinaisjäännökset eli inventoinnin ihmeellinen
maailma. Muinaistutkija 1/1999: 39-50.
Mikkola, Esa 2001. Mikkelin mlk:n Orijärven hopearaha-aarre ja muinaispellot. In: Ranta, Helena
(ed.), Kentältä poimittua 5. Kirjoitelmia arkeologian alalta. Museoviraston arkeologian osas­ton jul­­kai­
suja N:o 9: 84-98.
Mikkola, Esa 2005. Mikkelin Orijärven muinaispeltovaiheet. In: Pesonen, Petro & Mökkönen, Teemu
(eds.), Arkeologipäivät 2004. Suomen arkeologinen seura. Hamina: 49-59.
Mikkola, Esa & Talvio, Tuukka 2000. A silver coin hoard from Orijärvi, Kihlinpelto in Mikkeli Rural
Commune, Province of Savo, Eastern Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica XVI: 129-138.
Mikkola, Esa & Tenhunen, Tanja 2003. Uusimpia tutkimustuloksia Mikkelin Orijärven hopearaha-
aarteen löytöpaikalta. Sihti 5: 55-73.

415
Miller, Daniel & Tilley, Christopher 1984. Ideology, power and prehistory: an introduction. In: Miller,
Daniel & Tilley, Christopher (eds.), Ideology, power and prehistory. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge: 1-15.
Mogren, Mats 1996. Hälsingland från 700-tal till 1700-tal: Expansionsstrategier och marginalernas dyna-
mik, eller: Centrum-periferi-analys är inte så enfaldigt som många tror. Kontaktstencil 39: 137-152.
Moora, H. 1929. Die Eisenzeit in Lettland bis etwa 500 n. Chr. I. Teil: Die Funde. Õpetatud Eesti Seltsi Toi-
mitused XXV.
Moora, H. 1938. Die Eisenzeit in Lettland bis etwa 500 n. Chr. II. Teil: Analyse. Õpetatud Eesti Seltsi Toi-
mitused XXIX.
Moora, H. A. 1952. Pamjatniki pozdnego neolita i rannej épohi metalla v Pribaltike.Kratkie Soobščenija
Instituta Istorii Material’noj Kul’tury XLVIII: 3-24.
Moora, H. 1956. Eesti rahva ja naaberrahvaste kujunemisest arheoloogia andmeil. In: Moora, H. (ed.),
Eesti rahva etnilisest ajaloost. Artiklite kogumik. Tallinn: 41-119.
Moora, H. & Ligi, H. 1970. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaftsordnung der Völker des Baltikums zu Anfang des 13.
Jahrhunderts. Akademi der Wissenschaften der Estnischen SSR. Institut für Geschichts­forsschung.
Tallinn.
Moora, T. 1974. Über die Ausgrabungen der Steinsetzung von Võhma in Nordestland. Eesti NSV
teaduste akadeemia toimetised. 23. köide. Ühiskonnateadused. 1974, Nr. 1: 86-87.
Muurimäki, Eero 2004. Huts and Houses. Stone Age and early metal Age buildings in Finland. Toim.
Helena Ranta, Museovirasto – National Board of Antiquities, Helsinki 2002. 255 s. ISBN 951-616-
079-4. Suomen Museo 2003: 139-142.
Myhre, Bjørn 1999. Together or apart – the problem of nucleation and dispersal of settlements. In:
Fabech, Charlotte & Ringtved, Jytte (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in
Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus University Press: 125-129.
Myhrman, Hans 1990a. Lokalisering av stenåldersboplatser i skärgården. Skärgård 3/1990: 38-41.
Myhrman, Hans 1990b. Från säljägare till rösbyggare. Stenåldern i Dragsfjärd ur en amatörarkeologs syn­
vinkel. Åbo.
Myrdal, Janken 1999. Jordbruket under feodalismen 1000-1700. Det svenska jordbrukets historia. Borås.
Myrdal, Janken 2005. Krisen är ingen katastrof. In: Bunte, Carin, Berglund, Björn E. & Larsson, Lars (eds.),
Arkeologi och naturvetenskap. Gyllenstiernska Krapperupstiftelsens symposium nr 6 år 2003. Lund: 82-110.
Myöhänen, Sami 2000. Polveutumista, ideansiirtoja ja harmonisointia. Verojen tulo Suomeen. In: Lap-
palainen, Jussi T. (ed.), Verotushistoriaa 2. Turun yliopiston historian laitoksen julkaisuja 58: 9-46.
Mägi, Marika 2005. Mortuary houses in Iron Age Estonia. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 9, 2: 93-131.
Mäntylä, Ilkka 1988. Kustavilainen aika. In: Suomen historian pikkujättiläinen. Porvoo: 312-357.
Mäntylä, Sari 2005a. Kuriositeetteja, lahjoja ja suojelumagiaa. Hauta-antimien tulkintaongelmia Ha-
likon Rikalanmäen aineiston valossa. In: Immonen, Visa & Haimila, Miikka (eds.), Mustaa
valkoisella. Ystäväkirja arkeologian lehtori Kristiina Korkeakoski-Väisäselle. Turun yliopiston arkeolo-
gian oppiaine. Vantaa: 134-152.
Mäntylä, Sari (ed.) 2005b. Rituals and Relations. Studies on the society and material culture of the Baltic
Finns. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Humaniora 336.
Mäntylä, Sari (ed.) 2006. Miekka – Menneisyys – Maisema. Halikon kunnan kulttuuritoimi. Somero.
Mäntylä, Sari 2007. The Meaning of Weapons as Grave Goods: Examples from Two Southwest Finnish
Crusade Period Cemeteries. In: Weapons, Weaponry and Man (In memoriam of Vytautas Kazakevičius).
Archaeologia Baltica, vol. 8: 302-309.
Mäkivuoti, Markku 1987. Om den förhistoriska järntillverkningen I Nordfinland. In: Julku, Kyösti
(ed.), Nordkalotten i en skiftande värld – kulturer utan gränser och stater över gränser. Studia
���������������
Histori-
ca Septentrionalia 14:1: 59-71.

416
Mäkivuoti, Markku 1988. An iron-age dwelling site and burial mounds at Rakanmäki, near Tornio.
Fennoscandia archaeologica V: 35-45.
Naskali, Eero 1999. On Ancient Skis. In: Huurre, Matti (ed.), Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen.
The Finnish Antiquarian Society, The Archaeological Society of Finland. Jyväskylä: 295-306.
Nerman, Birger 1935. Die Völkerwanderungszeit Gotlands. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets
Akademien. Stockholm.
Nicklasson, Påvel 1997a. Svärdet ljuger inte. Vapenfynd från äldre järnålder på Sveriges fastland. Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia. Series prima in 4° N 22°.
Nicklasson, Påvel 1997b. The Chronology of Weapons from the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Mainland
Sweden and Öland. Lund Archaeological Review 1996: 31-50.
Nicklasson, Påvel 2001. Strävsamma bönder och sturska stormän. Stafsinge och Halland från bronsålder till
medeltid. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia, Series in 8º, No. 35.
Nikander, Grabriel 1942. Bebyggelsens förutsättningar. Kimitobygdens historia II:1. Åbo: 27-50.
Nissinaho, Aino 1988. Rautakauden ja varhaiskeskiajan asutuskehityksestä Maskunjokilaaksossa. In:
Korkeakoski-Väisänen, Kristiina, Lähdesmäki, Ulla, Nissinaho, Aino, Pihlman, Sirkku & Tuovi-
nen, Tapani (eds.), Baskerilinja. Unto Salo 60 vuotta. Vammala: 43-50.
Nissinaho, Aino (ed.) 1994. Cultural Ecology: One Theory? Turku.
Nissinaho, Aino (ed.) 1995. Ihmisen maisema. Kirjoituksia yhteisön ja ympäristön muutoksesta Lounais-
­Suo­men rannikolla. Turku.
Nissinaho, Aino 1996. Iron Age settlement dynamics in southwest Finland. In: European Association of
Archaeologists. 2nd Annual Meeting. Riga, 25th-29th September 1996. Programme and abstracts: 60-61.
Nissinaho, Aino 1997. Eräitä lähimpään naapuruuteen perustuvia alueanalyysikokeiluja varsinais-
suomalaisesta asutusaineistosta. Muinaistutkija 4/1997: 24-28.
Nissinaho, Aino (ed.) 2000. Sites and Settlements. Turku.
Nissinaho, Aino 2002. Paikallisyhteisö muutoksien edessä – Mikrotutkimus Maskusta rautakauden
lopulta keskiajalle. In: Saukkonen, Anna (ed.), Ympäristöhistorian monet kasvot – kirjoituksia suoma­
laisesta ympäristöhistoriasta. Turun yliopiston Historian laitoksen julkaisuja 62: 89-141.
Nissinaho, Aino 2007. The Lifestory of Masku Villages. The Environment of an Emerging Manor in
SW Finland. In: Blomkvist, Nils & Lindström, Therese (eds.), The Significant Detail. Europeaniza­
tion at the Base of Society: the Case of the Baltic Rim 1100 – 1400 AD. Transactions of the CCC work­
shops at Skäftekärr in Sweden 7-10 October 1999, and at Tukums in Latvia 15-18 April 2000. CCC
papers 9. Gotland University, Visby. Painoyhtymä Oy: 193-215.
Nordin, Svante 1991. Tre typer av maktteori. In: Larsson, Lars & Ryberg, Eva (eds.), Arkeologi och makt.
Rapporet från arkeologidagarna 15-17 januari 1990. ������������������������������������������������
University of Lund. Institute of Archaeology Re-
port Series No 40: 7-10.
Nordman, C. A. 1937. Bornholm I Nagu. Finskt Museum XLIII: 23-31.
Nordman, C. O. 1940. Medeltidskyrkogården i Hitis. Finskt Museum XLVI: 12-27.
Norman, Peter 1993. Medeltida utskärsfiske. En studie av fornlämningar i kustmiljö. Nordiska museets
Handlingar 116.
Norman, Peter 1995. Sjöfart och fiske. De kustbundna näringarnas lämningar. Fornlämningar i Sverige 3.
Riksantikvarieämbetet: Borås.
Nuñez, Milton 1986. Om bosättningen på Ålandsöarna under stenåldern. Åländsk odling 46: 13-28.
Nuñez, Milton 1989. New data on Åland’s Swedish Pitted Ware culture. Finskt Museum 1989: 122-123.
Nuñez, Milton 1990. Människa och miljö i den åländska skärgården under stenåldern. Skärgård
3/1990: 42-47. Åbo.
Nuñez, Milton 1993. Searching for a Structure in the Late Iron Age Settlement of the Åland Islands,
Finland. Karhunhammas 15: 61-73.

417
Nuñez, Milton 1994. Discovery
�������������������������������������������������������������������������������
and occupation of the Finnish Stone Age archipelago in the 4th mille-
nium BC. In: Goldhahn, Joakim (ed.), Teori & Praktik. Rapport från kontaktseminariet i Tanum 4:e - 8:
e oktober 1993. Kontaktstencil XXXVII: 109-124.
Nuñez, Milton 1995. Agrarian
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Colonization and Settlement of the Åland Islands in the First Millenni-
um AD. Fennoscandia archaeologica XII: 113-122.
Nuñez, Milton 1996. When the water turned salty. Muinaistutkija 3/1996: 23-33.
Nuñez, Milton & Okkonen, Jari 1999. Environmental Background for the Rise and Fall of Villages and
Megastructures in North Ostrobotnia 4000-2000 cal BC. In: Huurre, Matti (ed.), Dig it all. Papers
dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. The Finnish Antiquarian Society. Helsinki: 105-115.
Núñez, Milton & Okkonen, Jari 2005. Humanizing of north Ostrobotnian landscapes during the 4th
and 3rd millennia BC. Journal of Nordic Archaeological Science 15: 25-38.
Nuñez, Milton & Uino, Pirjo 1998. Dwellings and related structures in prehistoric mainland Finland.
In: Kyhlberg, Ola (ed.), Hus och tomt i Norden under förhistorisk tid. Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift
Nr 33, 1997: 133-152.
Nyberg, Ragnar 1985. Våra rösgravar. En inventeringsrapport från Pargas. Pargas Hembygdsförenings
publikationer 8.
Nylén, Erik 1955. Die jüngere vorrömische Eisenzeit Gotlands. Funde, Chronologie, Formenkunde. Kungl.
Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Uppsala.
Nylén, Erik 1969. Den blodröda Sibbo-kula, ett keltiskt arbete? Finskt Museum 1969: 5-13.
Näsman, Ulf 1994. The Iron Age graves of Öland - Representative of What? In: Stjerquist, Berta (ed.),
Prehistoric Graves as Source of Information. Symposium at Kastlösa, Öland, May 21-23, 1992. Kungl.
Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 29: 15-30.
Nørbach, Lars Christian 1999. Organising iron production and settlement in Northwestern Europe
during the Iron Age. In: Fabech, Charlotte & Ringtved, Jytte (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Pro­
ceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus
University Press: 237-247.
Oja, Aulis 1933. Halikon kihlakunnan keskiaikaisesta asutuksesta ja hallintopitäjäjaosta. In: Historial­
lisia tutkielmia. Turun historiallisen yhdistyksen julkaisuja IV: 181-216.
Oja, Aulis 1945. Uskelan väestö ja väkiluku v. 1634. Historiallinen Aikakauskirja 1945, N:o 1: 60-71.
Oja, Aulis 1955. Keskiaikaisen “Etelä-Suomen” asutus ja aluejaot. Historiallisia tutkimuksia XLIV.
Oja, Aulis 1958. Perttelin historia. Salo.
Oja, Aulis 1961. Kuusjoen historia. Salo.
Ojala, Antti E. K. & Saarinen, Timo 2002. Paleosecular variation of the Earth’s magnetic field during
the last 10 000 years based on the annually laminated sediment of Lake Nautajärvi, central Fin-
land. The Holocene 12, 4: 391-400.
Ojala, Antti E. K., Saarnisto, Matti & Snowball, Ian F. 2003. Climate
�������������������������������������
and Environmental Reconstruc-
tions from Scandinavian Varved Lake Sediments. PAGES News, Vol. 11, N˚ 2 & 3: 10-12.
Ojala, Antti E. K. & Alenius, Teija 2005. 10 000
�������������������������������������������������������������������
years of interannual sedimentation recorded in the Lake Nau-
tajärvi (Finland) clastic-organic varves. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 219: 285-302.
Okkonen, Jari 2003. Jättiläisen hautoja ja hirveitä kiviröykkiöitä – Pohjanmaan muinaisten kivirakennelmien
arkeologiaa. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora 52.
Okkonen, Jari & Äikäs, Tiina 2006. Oulun seudun varhaismetallikautiset keittokuopat – käyttötarkoi-
tus ja konteksti. Faravid. Pohjois-Suomen Historiallisen Yhdistyksen Vuosikirja XXX: 17-32.
Olausson, Deborah 1993. Hav och äng, skog och åker. Bronsåldersbondens levnadssätt i södra Sve­
rige. In: Forsberg, Lars & Larsson, Thomas B. (eds.), Ekonomi och näringsformer i nordisk brons­ålder.
Rapport från det 6:e nordiska bronsålderssymposiet, Nämforsen 1990. Studia
������������������������������
Archaeologica Universi-
tatis Umensis 3: 105-115.

418
Olausson, Michael 1995. Det inneslutna rummet – om kultiska hägnader, fornborgar och befästa gårdar I
Uppland från 1300 f Kr till Kristi födelse. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar.
Skrifter nr 9.
Olsen, Bjørnar 1994. Bosetning og samfunn i Finnmarks forhistorie. Oslo.
Olsén, Pär 1934. Några halsringar från övergångstiden mellan brons- och järnålder. In: Studier till­
ägnade Gunnar Ekholm 13.3.1934. Göteborg: 154-168.
Olsson, Mats & Thomasson, Joakim 2001. Vad är en by och varför? Om den medeltida byns uppkomst
och rationalitet. Scandia 1/2001: 5-29.
Onnela, Johanna, Lempiäinen, Terttu & Luoto, Jukka 1996. Viking Age cereal cultivation in SW Finland -
a study of charred grain from Pahamäki in Pahka, Lieto. Annales Botanici Fennici 33: 237-255.
Orrman, Eljas 1983. Den medeltida bebyggelseutvecklingen i Finland i ljuset av medeltidens skatte-
enheter. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 3, 1983: 280-295.
Orrman, Eljas 1986. Bebyggelsen i Pargas, St. Mårtens och Vemo socknar i Egentliga Finland under sen­
medeltiden och på 1500-talet. Historiallisia tutkimuksia 131.
Orrman, Eljas 1990a. Den svenska bebyggelsens historia. In: “Finska skären”. Studier i åboländsk kultur­
historia utgivna av Konstsamfundet till dess 50-årsjubileum 1990. Helsingfors: 197-278.
Orrman, Eljas 1990b. Synpunkter på bebyggelseutvecklingen i södra Österbotten under järnåldern
och tidig medeltid. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 1, 1990: 32-42.
Orrman, Eljas 1991. Geographical factors in the spread of permanent settlement in parts of Finland
and Sweden from the end of the Iron Age to the Beginning of Modern Times. Fennoscandia
archaeologica VIII: 3-21.
Orrman, Eljas 1996. Ett försök att beräkna bebyggelsens omfattning i Finland vid utgången av hög-
medeltiden. In: Haarstaad, Kjell, Kirkhusmo, Anders, Slettan, Dagfinn & Supphellen, Steinar
(eds.), Innsikt og utsyn, Festskrift till Jørn Sandnes. Trondheim: 125-143.
Orrman, Eljas 2001. Studier om landskapsbildningen och korstågstiden i Tavastland och Satakunda.
Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 3, 2001: 421-427.
Ostoja-Zagórski, Janusz 1989a. Changes in economic and social structures in northern Poland at the
transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age. In: Sørensen, Marie Louise Stig & Thomas, Roger
(eds.), The Bronze Age - Iron Age Transition in Europe. Aspects of continuity and change in European
societies c. 1200 to 500 B.C. BAR International Series 483(ii): 389-407.
Ostoja-Zagórski, Janusz 1989b. Anthropogenic changes of the Natural Environment in the Late Bronze
Age in the South-east Baltic Sea Zone. In: Ambrosiani, B. (ed.), Die Bronzezeit im Ostseegebiet. Ein
rapport der Kgl. Schwedischen Akademie der Literatur Geschichte und Altertumsforschung über das Julita_
Symposium 1986. Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 22: 27-34.
Palm, Jukka & Pellinen, Hanna-Maria 2002. Historiallisen ajan maaseutuarkeologiaa Pernajassa.
Muinaistutkija 3/2002: 29-46.
Palo, Jyrki 2001. Auranjälkiä Asikkalan Kalkkisista. In: Ranta, Helena (ed.), Kentältä poimittua 5. Kirjoi­
�������
telmia arkeologian alalta. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja N:o 9: 99-104.
Patrushev, Valery S. 2004. The chronology of the Early Iron Age of the Middle Volga region. In: Uino,
Pirjo (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002. Dating and Chronology. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston
julkaisuja N:o 10: 75-86.
Paynter, Robert & McGuire, Randall H. 1991. The Archaeology of Inequality: Material Culture, Dom-
ination and Resistance. In: Paynter, Robert & McGuire, Randall H. (eds.), The Archaeology of
In­equality. Blackwell: Oxford: 1-27.
Pedersen, Ellen Anne & Widgren, Mats 1998. Järnålder 500 f.Kr. – 1000 e.Kr. In: Welinder, Stig, Peder-
sen, Ellen Anne & Widgren, Mats, Jordbrukets första femtusen år. Det svenska jordbrukets historia.
Borås: 237-459.

419
Peets, Jüri 2003a. Raua vägi. Raua tootmine ja sepatöö Eestis ja naaberpiirikondades muinas- ja keskajal. Mu-
inasaja teadus 12.
Peets, Jüri 2003b. Koos rauaga läbi aastatuhandete. In: Lang, Valter & Tamla, Ûlle (eds.), Arheoloogiga
Läänemeremaades. Uurimusi Jûri Seliranna auks. Muinasaja teadus 13: 209-228.
Pellinen, Hanna-Maria 1999. Soikeiden tuluskivien konteksti. Muinaistutkija 1/1999: 24-38.
Pellinen, Hanna-Maria 2004. Vuosituhannet Vehmaalla – opas arkeologiseen menneisyyteen. Vehmaan koti­
seutuyhdistys ry. Vantaa.
Pellinen, Hanna-Maria 2005. Kivilouhoksesta käärmemiekkaan. Vehmaan omaleimainen esihistoria.
In: Immonen, Visa & Haimila, Miikka (eds.), Mustaa valkoisella. Ystäväkirja arkeologian lehtori Kris­
tiina Korkeakoski-Väisäselle. Turun yliopisto, arkeologia. Vantaa: 169-187.
Pellinen, Hanna-Maria 2007. Reconstruction and archaeology – A case study of a village from histo­ri­cally
recorded times. In: Immonen, Visa, Lempiäinen, Mia & Rosendahl, Ulrika (eds.), Hortus novus. Fresh
approaches to medieval archaeology in Finland. Archaeologia Medii Aevi Finlandiae XIV: 92–107.
Pellinen, Hanna-Maria & Pälikkö, Marja 2006. A Fossil Field in Laitila Untamala. In: Schadla-Hall,
Tim (ed.), Finland and Tallinn. Report and Proceedings of the 151st Summer Meeting of the Royal
Archaeological Institute in 2005. Supplement to the Archaeological Journal volume 162. The
Royal Archaeological Institute. London: 35-41.
Pentikäinen, Juha 1990. Child Abandonment as an Indicator of Christianization in the Nordic Countries.
In: Ahlbäck, Tore (ed.), Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names. Based on
Pa­pers read at the Symposium on Encounters between Religions in Old Nordic Times and on Cultic
Place-Names held at Åbo, Finland, on the 19th-21st of August 1987. Åbo: 72-91.
Pesonen, Petro 2004. Neolithic pots and ceramics chronology – AMS-datings of Middle and Late Neo­
lithic ceramics in Finland. In: Uino, Pirjo (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002. Dating and Chronology.
Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja N:o 10: 87-97.
Pesonen, Petro 2006. Vanhempia roomalaisia nuoremmalla roomalaisajalla? Early Romans in the late
Roman Iron Age? In: Suhonen, Mervi (ed.), Arkeologian lumoa synkkyyteen. Artikkeleita Christian
Carpelanin juhlapäiväksi. Lighting the darkness – the attraction of archaeology. Papers in honour of Chris­
tian Carpelan. Helsinki: 138-151.
Pesonen, Petro & Lahti, Eeva 2005. Salon Meriniitynpuiston roomalaisen rautakauden kalmis­to – pa­la­
­­neen ihmisluun tutkimusta käytännössä. In: Pesonen, Petro & Mökkönen, Teemu (eds.), Ar­keologi­
­päivät 2004. Suomen arkeologinen seura. Hamina: 74-86.
Pietrzak, Mirosław & Podgórski 2005. Chłapowo 2 powiat pucki, woj. Pomorskie. Cemetarzysko fa��������
zy wiel­
kowiejskiej kultury pomorskiej. Muzeum Archeologiczne w Gdańsku: Gdansk.
Pihlaja, Kalevi & Haihu, Kirsti 1991. Radiocarbon dating in Turku University. Reports from the 14C Laboratory 1.
Pihlman, Aki 1982. Ulvila – myöhäiskeskiaikainen taajama Kokemäenjoen varrella. Asuinpaikan
kronologisista vaiheista saviastia-aineiston perusteella. Historiallinen Arkisto 78: 99-113.
Pihlman, Aki 2005. Varhaista kaupunkia etsimässä. Museotiedote Turusta 3/2005: 27.
Pihlman, Aki & Majantie, Kirsi 2006. Varhainen Turku – Uutta tietoa Turun varhaisista vaiheista.
SKAS 1/2006: 45-54.
Pihlman, Aki, Pihlman, Sirkku & Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka 2001. Kylästä kaupungiksi. Från by till
stad. Museotiedote Turusta. Museinytt från Åbo 3/2001: 11-13.
Pihlman, Sirkku 1985. Laitila, Soukainen, Savemäki. Rautakautisen kalmiston tutkimus 1978. Karhun­
hammas 9: 58-71.
Pihlman, Sirkku 1987. Turun seudun rautakaudella erityispiirteitä. Väestöllisiä erityispiirteitä ja niuk­
kuuden ja runsauden kausia? ABOA. Turun maakuntamuseo, vuosikirja 49/1985: 25-39.
Pihlman, Sirkku 1990. Kansainvaellus- ja varhaismerovinkiajan aseet Suomessa. Typologia, kronologia ja aseet
ryhmästrategioissa. Iskos 10.

420
Pihlman, Sirkku 1992. Problems of ethnicity relating to the Migration and Early Merovingian Periods
in Finland. In: Lang, Valter & Selirand, J. (eds.), Cultural heritage of the Finno-Ugrians and Slavs.
Papers presented by the participants in the Sovjet-Finnish archaeological symposium 10-16 May 1990 in
Tallinn. Tallinn: 41-61.
Pihlman, Sirkku 1995. A Short History of Archaeology at the University of Turku. Karhunhammas 16: 1-18.
Pihlman, Sirkku 2003. Ikivanha raja-alue vallan tukikohdaksi. Kaupungin sijainti rautakautista taus-
taa vasten. In: Seppänen, Liisa (ed.), Kaupunkia pintaa syvemmältä. Arkeologisia näkökulmia Turun
historiaan. Archaeologia Medii Aevi Finlandiae IX: 27-41.
Pihlman, Sirkku 2004. Väestöräjähdys historiallisen ajan taitteessa? Voisiko aineistoja tulkita toisin-
kin? ABOA. Turun maakuntamuseo. Vuosikirja 66-67 / 2002-2003: 47-98.
Pihlman, Sirkku 2005. Beziehungen mit den Liven? Gedanken über die Kontaktfelder der Raisio-
­bewohner am ende der Prähistorischen Zeit. In: Mäntylä, Sari (ed.), Rituals and Relations. Studies
on the society and material culture of the Baltic Finns. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia.
Humaniora 336: 207-223.
Pihlman, Sirkku & Seppä-Heikka, Merja 1985. Indication of Late-Neolithic cereal cultivation at the Koti­
rinne dwelling site at Niuskala, Turku, SW Finland. Memoranda Soc. Fauna Flora Fennica 61: 85-88.
Piiper, J. 1988. Raigastvere järve ümbruse taimestiku muutused (taimede makrojäänuste analüüsi põhjal).
In: Rõuk, A.-M. & Selirand, J. (eds.), Loodusteaduslikke metoodeid Eesti arheoloogias. Tallinn: 85-96.
Pilcher, J. R. & Hughes, M 1982. The potential of dendrochronology for the study of climate change.
In: Harding, A. F. (ed.), Climatic Change in Later Prehistory. Edinburgh University Press: Edin-
burgh: 75-84.
Pipping, Hugo 1918. Finländska ortnamn. Skrifter utgivna av Åbo Akademi kommitte 7.
Pirrus, R. & Rõuk, A.-M. 1988. Inimtegevuse kajastumisest Vooremaa soo- ja järvesetetes. In: Rõuk,
A.-M. & Selirand, J. (eds.), Loodusteaduslikke metoodeid Eesti arheoloogias. Tallinn: 39-53.
Pitkänen, Kari 1979. Finlands folkmängd år 1749. Historisk Tidskrift för Finland 1979: 22-40.
Pitkänen, Kari 1992. Historiallisen ajan Halikko kunnallishallinnon alkuun. In: Halikon historia I. Jy­väs­
kylä: 151-518.
Pitkänen, Kari 1994. Suomen väestön historialliset kehityslinjat. In: Koskinen, Seppo, Martelin, Tuija,
Notkola, Irma-Leena, Notkola, Veijo & Pitkänen, Kari (eds.), Suomen väestö. Gaudeamus.
Hämeenlinna: 19-63.
Pitkänen, Ritva Liisa 1985. Turunmaan saariston suomalainen lainanimistö. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden
Seuran Toimituksia 418.
Pitkänen, Ritva Liisa 1990. Ortnamn av finskt ursprung. In: “Finska skären”. Studier i åboländsk kultur­
historia utgivna av Konstsamfundet till dess 50-årsjubileum 1990. Helsingfors: 135-193.
Pitkänen, Ritva Liisa 2003. De finska lånenamnen i Pargas. In: Boken om våra modersmål. Festskrift till
Mikael Reuter på hans 60-årsdag den 17 maj 2003. Vasa: 277-284.
Pleiner, Radomír 1980. Early Iron Metallurgy in Europe. In: Wertime, Theodore A. & Muhly, James D.
(eds.), The Coming of the Age of Iron. Yale University Press: New Haven and London: 375-415.
Pleiner, Radomír 1993. The Celtic Sword. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Price, Barbara J. 1984. Competition, Productive Intensification, and Ranked Society: Speculations
from Evolutionary Theory. In: Ferguson, R. Brian (ed.), Warfare, culture, and environment. Aca-
demic Press: Orlando: 209-240.
Pukkila, Jouko 2005. Muutama kartta muinaisesta Aurajokilaaksosta. In: Immonen, Visa & Haimila,
Miikka (eds.), Mustaa valkoisella. Ystäväkirja arkeologian lehtori Kristiina Korkeakoski-Väisäselle.
Turun yliopisto, arkeologia. Vantaa: 195-198.
Purhonen, Paula 1998. Kristinuskon saapumisesta Suomeen. Uskontoarkeologinen tutkimus. Suomen
Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 106.

421
Purhonen, Paula & Ranta, Helena (eds.) 1991. Arkeologia Suomessa – Arkeologi i Finland 1986-1987.
Museovirasto. Vammala.
Purhonen, Paula & Ranta, Helena (eds.) 1994. Arkeologia Suomessa – Arkeologi i Finland 1988-1989.
Museovirasto. Helsinki.
Purhonen, Paula, Ranta, Helena & Tenhunen, Tanja (eds.) 2004. Arkeologia Suomessa – Arkeologi i Fin­
land 2001-2002. Museovirasto. Vammala.
Purhonen, Paula & Ruonavaara, Leena 1994. On Subsistence Economy at the Prehistoric Dwelling-Site
Area of Jönsas in Vantaa, Southern Finland. In: Purhonen, Paula (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 1992. ����
Pre­
historic economy and means of livelihood. Museovirasto. Arkeologian osasto. Julkaisu N:o 5: 88-97.
Rahmqvist, Sigurd 1996. Sätesgårdar och gods. De medeltida frälsegodsens framväxt mot bakgrund
av Upplands bebyggelsehistoria. Upplands Fornminnesförenings Tidskrift 53.
Raike, Eeva & Haimila, Miikka 2003. Moninaisia kenttätöitä Ala-Satakunnan Lapissa kesällä 2002.
Muinaistutkija 2/2003: 15-26.
Raike, Eeva & Seppälä, Sirkka-Liisa 2005. Naarankalmanmäki. An Iron Age Complex in Lempäälä,
Southern Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica XXII: 43-78.
Ramqvist, Per H. 1981. Den arkeologiska undersökningen i Gene, norra Ångermanland. Bebyggelse­
historisk tidskrift Nr 1: 122-141.
Ramqvist, Per H. 1988. Mellannorrland under äldre järnålder. Några aspekter på samhällsstrukturen.
Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift Nr 14: 105-126.
Ramqvist, Per H. 1990. Högom. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Malung.
Ramqvist, Per H. & Müller-Wille, Michael 1988. Regionale
����������������������������������������������������
und überregionale Bedeutung des völkerwan-
derungszeitlichen Gräberfeldes von Högom, Medelpad, Nordschweden. Germania 1988: 95-134.
Randsborg, Klavs 1992. Historical Implications. Chronological Studies in European Archaeology c.
2000-500 B.C. Acta Archaeologica Vol. 62 - 1991: 89-108.
Randsborg, Klavs 1995. Hjortspring. Warfare and sacrifice in early Europe. Aarhus University Press.
Randsborg, Klavs 1996. The Nordic Bronze Age: Chronological Dimensions. In: Randsborg, Klavs
(ed.), Absolute Chronology. Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica vol. 67: 61-72.
Randsborg, Klavs 1998. Plundered Bronze Age Graves. Archaeological & Social Implications. Acta
Archaeologica vol. 69: 113-138.
Raninen, Sami 2003. Länttä, etelää, itää – hajapohdintoja rautakaudesta. Muinaistutkija 4/2003: 13-28.
Raninen, Sami 2005a. Big men on the river banks. Some thoughts on the Middle Merovingian Period wea­
pon burials in Finland. In: Mäntylä, Sari (ed.), Rituals and Relations. Studies on the society and material
culture of the Baltic Finns. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Huomaniora 336: 224-245.
Raninen, Sami 2005b. Il duce Salon seudulla? ���������������������������������������������������������
Rikkaiden hautausten probleema, läntiset kontaktit ja nu-
orempi roomalainen rautakausi. In: Immonen, Visa & Haimila, Miikka (eds.), Mustaa valkoisella. Ystä­
väkirja arkeologian lehtori Kristiina Korkeakoski-Väisäselle. Turun yliopisto, arkeologia. Vantaa: 199-222.
Raninen, Sami 2005c. Tuskan teatteri Turun Kärsämäessä. Ajatuksia ja sitaatteja roomalaisesta rauta­
kaudesta. I osa: Maarian Kärsämäki ja Itämeren maailma. Muinaistutkija 4/2005: 40-71.
Raninen, Sami 2006. Tuskan teatteri Turun Kärsämäessä. II
�����������������������������������������
osa: Väkivalta varhaisrautakauden kon-
tekstissa. Muinaistutkija 3/2006: 2-22.
Ranta, Helena (ed.) 2002. Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age buildings in Finland. National
Board of Antiquities. Jyväskylä.
Rasmussen, Marianne 1999. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Livestock without bones. The long-house as contributor to the interpre-
tation of livestock management in the Southern Scandinavian Early Bronze Age. In: Fabech,
Charlotte & Ringtved, Jytte (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus,
Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus University Press: 281-290.
Rech, Manfred 1973. Thrako-skythische Sichelschwerter in Nordfinnland? Finskt Museum 1972: 39-58.

422
Registrum Ecclesiae Aboensis 1952. Codices Medii Aevi Finlandiae. Vol. I.
Reisborg, Synnöve 1989. Die Keramik der Darsgärde-Siedlung, Skederid, Uppland. Eine Chronolo-
gische Analyse. In: Ambrosiani, B. (ed.), Die Bronzezeit im Ostseegebiet. Ein
���������������������������
rapport der Kgl. Schwe­
dischen Akademie der Literatur Geschichte und Altertumsforschung über das Julita-Symposium 1986.
Kungl. Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Konferenser 22: 83-105.
Reisborg, Synnöve 1994. En husgrund från Nibble, Ösmo socken, Södermanland. Tor 26: 57-66.
Renfrew, Colin 1986. Introduction: peer polity interaction and socio-political change. In: Renfrew,
Colin & Cherry, John F. (eds.), Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press: Cambridge: 1-18.
Renfrew, Colin & Bahn, Paul 1991. Archaeology. Theories, Methods, and Practice. Thames and Hudson: London.
Renvall, Pentti 1933. Pöytyän hallintopitäjän asutus- ja aluesuhteista. In: Historiallisia tutkielmia. Turun
historiallisen yhdistyksen julkaisuja IV: 153-180.
Riddersporre, Mats 1999. Village and single farm. Settlement structure or landscape organization. In:
Fabech, Charlotte & Ringtved, Jytte (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in
Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus University Press: 167-175.
Riga Katalog 1896. Katalog der Ausstellung zum X. Archäologischen Kongress in Riga 1896. Riga.
Riikonen, Jaana 2004. Kaksi vaakaa naisenhaudasta Kirkkomäestä ja muutaman muun hauta-anti-
men tulkintaa. ABOA. Turun maakuntamuseo. Vuosikirja 66-67 / 2002-2003: 11-45.
Ringdtved, Jytte 1999. Settlement organisation in a time of war and conflict. In: Fabech, Charlotte &
Ringtved, Jytte (eds.), Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May
4-7 1998. Jutland Archaeological Society. Aarhus University Press: 361-381.
Rinne, Juhani 1906. En sekundär begrafning i ett bronsålders grafröse. Suomen Museo Finskt Museum: 86-92.
Ritums, Ritvars 2000. Senās agrārās ainavas apzināšana un izpēte. Latvijas Vēstures Muzeja Raksti Nr.
7: 39-44.
Roeck Hansen, Birgitta 1991. Township and Territory. A study of land-use and settlement patterns in Åland
c. A.D. 500-1550. Stocholm Studies in Human Geography 6.
Roeck Hansen, Birgitta & Nissinaho, Aino 1995. A Fossil Landscape in Salo, Laitila, SW Finland.
Karhunhammas 16: 25-39.
Root, Dolores 1983. Information Exchange and the Spatial Configurations of Egalitarian Societies. In:
Moore, James A. & Keene, Arthur S. (eds.), Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Academic Press:
New York: 193-219.
Ros, Jonas 2001. Sigtuna. Staden, kyrkorna och den kyrkliga organisationen. Occasional Papers in Arc­haeo­logy 30.
Rosenberg, G. 1937. Hjortspringfundet. København.
Rubensson, Leif 2002. Järnframställningen i Österbotten. In: Viklund, Karin & Gullberg, Kurt (eds.),
Från romartid till vikingatid. Pörnullbacken – en järnålderstida bosättning i Österbotten. Acta Antiqua
Ostrobotniensia 5: 189-212.
Ruotsi, Suvi 2003. Refuse heaps treasure troves for archaeologists. ProAcademica. News from the Acade­
my of Finland 1/2003: 19-21.
Rydh, Hanna 1921. S.k. eldslagningsstenar från järnåldern. Fornvännen 1917: 172-190.
Räty, Jouko 1995. The Red Ochre Graves of Vaateranta in Taipalsaari. Fennoscandia archaeologica XII: 161-172.
Saksa, Aleksandr 1998. Rautakautinen Karjala. Muinais-Karjalan asutuksen synty ja varhaiskehitys. Studia
Carelica Humanistica 11.
Salmo, Helmer 1938. Die Waffen der Merovingerzeit in Finnland. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen
Aikakauskirja XLII:1.
Salmo, Helmer 1953. En handelsdepå från romersk tid från Pernå. Finskt Museum LX: 5-9.
Salmo, Helmer 1980. Arkeologinen aineisto. Perniön historia. Salo: 11-95.

423
Salo, Unto 1962. Pronssikauden tutkimuksia Nakkilassa. Suomen Museo LXIX: 27–73.
Salo, Unto 1965. Kullaan Puiston muinaisjalas. Uusia tietoja harjajalasten funktiosta ja iästä. Suomen
Museo LXXII: 5-15.
Salo, Unto 1968. Die frührömische Zeit in Finnland. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 67.
Salo, Unto 1970. Metallikautinen asutus Kokemäenjoen suussa I. Muinaisjäännökset ja muinaislöydöt. Pori.
Salo, Unto 1972. Suomen varhaisimmat sirpit. Kotiseutu n:o 4-5/1972.
Salo, Unto 1976. Bronsåldershus i Satakunta. Iskos 1: 51–54.
Salo, Unto 1981. Satakunnan pronssikausi. Satakunnan historia I,2. Rauma.
Salo, Unto 1983. Palaneet kivet eli Suomen vanhimman haudan partailta. In: Res referunt repertae.
Niilo Valonen 1913-1983. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia 183: 247-265.
Salo, Unto 1984a. Pronssikausi ja rautakauden alku. Suomen historia 1. Espoo: 98-249.
Salo, Unto 1984b. Pyyntikulttuurista maan viljelyyn. Sukupolvien perintö I. Helsinki: 61-100.
Salo, Unto 1984c. On the Weaponry of the Early Roman Period in Finland and neighbouring Areas.
Iskos 4: 83-92.
Salo, Unto 1984d. Esihistoriallisen asutuksen jatkuvuudesta Suomen rannikolla. In: Åström, Sven-
Erik (ed.), Suomen väestön esihistorialliset juuret. Bidrag till kännedom av Finlands natur och folk.
Utgivna av Finska Vetenskaps-Societeten H. 131: 175-190.
Salo, Unto 1987.Noormarkku Söörmarkku: Karimaa ja Rainola. Varhaismetallikautisten raunioiden
tutkimus 1981-2. Karhunhammas 11: 53-88.
Salo, Unto 1989. Astian kulttuurihistoriasta Suomessa ja naapurialueilla. Suomen Museo 1989: 5-48.
Salo, Unto 1990a. Agricola’s Ukko in the light of archaeology. A chronological and interpretative
study of ancient Finnish religion. In: Ahlbäck, Tore (ed.), Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cul­
tic Place-Names. Åbo: 92-190.
Salo, Unto 1990b. Fire-striking implements of iron and Finnish myths relating to the birth of fire. Iskos 9: 49-61.
Salo, Unto 1992. Projekti Lounais-Suomen rannikon varhaismetallikautiset hautarauniot. Karhunham­
mas 14: 5-8.
Salo, Unto 1994. Welcoming presentation. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Cultural ecology: one theory? Turku: 1-2.
Salo, Unto 1995a. Aurajokilaakson pronssikautinen ja rautakautinen asutus - tietoja, tulkintoja, kysy-
myksiä. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Ihmisen maisema. Kirjoituksia yhteisön ja ympäristön muutoksesta
Lounais-Suomen rannikolla. Turku: 1-45.
Salo, Unto 1995b. Raua sünd. Rauaaja algus Soomes. Austrvegr: 19-21.
Salo, Unto 1997. Ihmisen jäljet Satakunnan maisemassa. Kulttuurimaiseman vuosituhannet. Suomen Kirjal-
lisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 677. Rauma.
Salo, Unto 1999. Kotimaakuntamme Satakunta. Katsaus Satakunnan asuttamisen, organisoitumisen, talou­
den ja kulttuurin vaiheisiin. Satakuntaliitto. Pori.
Salo, Unto 2000a. Suomi ja Häme, Häme ja Satakunta. In: Peltovirta, Jukka (toim.), Hämeen käräjät I.
Hämeenlinna: 18-230.
Salo, Unto 2000b. Moisio of Nousiainen – a window to Finnish religious and social history. In: Nis­sin­
aho, Aino (ed.), Sites and settlement. Turku: 101-148
Salo, Unto 2003. Oliko Kalanti muinaismaakunta. In: Kaitanen, Veijo, Laukkanen, Esa & Uotila, Kari
(eds.), Muinainen Kalanti ja sen naapurit. Talonpojan maailma rautakaudelta keskiajalle. Suomalaisen
Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 825. Hämeenlinna: 13-91.
Salo, Unto 2004a. Suomen ja Hämeen synty. Suomen Museo 2003: 5-58.
Salo, Unto 2004b. Sastamalan historia 1,1. Esihistoria. Hämeenlinna.
Salo, Unto 2005a. Kalan pyynnistä karjan hoitoon. Pyyntikulttuurista viljelevän talouden alkuun. Suomen
maatalousmuseon julkaisusarja: Pieniä vihkosia nro 2.

424
Salo, Unto 2005b. Muutama sana Sastamalan esihistoriasta. Muinaistutkija 3/2005: 50-55.
Salo, Unto & Söyrinki-Harmo, Leena 2001. Arkeologinen tutkimus Satakunnassa 1951-2000. Satakun­
ta. Kotiseutututkimuksia XIX: 40-115.
Salomonsson, Bengt 1958. Eine "Schaftlochaxt". Meddelanden från Lunds universitets historiska museum
1958: 19-51.
Salonen, Veli-Pekka, Ikäheimo, Markku & Luoto, Jukka 1981. Rautakautisen ja historiallisen asutuksen
ilmeneminen paleontologisin ja arkeologisin keinoin Piikkiön Kuoppajärven ympäristössä Lounais-
Suomessa. Turun yliopiston maaperägeologian osaston julkaisuja 44.
Saloranta, Elina 2000. Iron Age colonisation and land use in the Vähäjoki river valley of Turku (Maa­
ria). In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Sites and settlement. Turku: 15-43.
Saloranta, Elina & Tuovinen, Tapani 2004. Esiroomalaisen ajan puuastia Turun keskustasta – löytö
meren syvyydestä. ABOA. Turun maakuntamuseo. Vuosikirja 66-67 / 2002-2003: 142-152.
Santalahti, Keijo, Alhanen, Kauko & Reuna, Olavi 1936. Ruokalisän maksaminen Vehmaan, Maskun
ja Piikkiön kihlakunnissa 1500-luvulla sekä senaikainen hallintopitäjäjako. Turun Historiallinen
Arkisto V: 87-93.
Sartes, Minna 1994. Subneolithic and Neolithic Settlement Systems in South-West Finland. Discussion
on Resource Areas. In: Purhonen, Paula (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 1992. Prehistoric economy and
means of livelihood. Museovirasto. Arkeologian osasto. Julkaisu N:o 5: 105-114.
Sarvas, Anja 1980. Perniön asutus esihistoriallisina aikoina. Perniön historia. Salo: 96-100.
Sarvas, Pekka 1971. Ristiretkiajan ajoituskysymyksiä. Suomen Museo 1971: 51-63.
Sarvas, Pekka 1972. Länsi-Suomen ruumishautojen raha-ajoitukset. Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian lai-
tos. Moniste n:o 6.
Sauter, Marc-R. 1976. Switzerland from earliest times to the Roman conquest. Thames and Hudson: Southhampton.
Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne 1989. Iron Age Studies in Salo III. The Development of Iron Age Settle­
ment in the Isokylä Area in Salo. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 89:2.
Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne 1996. The Vainionmäki society. In: Purhonen, Paula (ed.), Vainionmäki –
a Merovingian Period Cemetery in Laitila, Finland. National Board of Antiquities. Vammala: 130-135.
Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne 2004. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston kenttätoiminta vuosina
2001-2002. In: Purhonen, Paula, Ranta, Helena & Tenhunen, Tanja (eds.), Arkeologia Suomessa –
Arkeologi i Finland 2001-2002. Museovirasto. Vammala: 7-25.
Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne 2006. The Early Iron Age cemetery at Korvala in Sauvo. In: Schadla-
Hall, Tim (ed.), Finland and Tallinn. Report and Proceedings of the 151st Summer Meeting of the Roy­
al Archaeological Institute in 2005. Supplement to the Archaeological Journal volume 162. The
Royal Archaeological Institute. London: 49-53.
Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne, Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa, Linturi, Elvi & Uino, Pirjo 1986. The �������
re-
search history of the Isokylä area in Salo. In: Iron Age studies in Salo I-II. Suomen Muinaismuisto­
yhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 89:1: 13-24.
Schmidehelm, M. H. 1983. Koillis-Viron varhaisrautakausi 500 eaa.- 500 jaa. Helsingin yliopiston arkeo-
logian laitos. Moniste n:o 31.
Schmidt Sabo, Katalin 2001. Vem behöver en by? Kyrkheddinge, struktur och strategi under tusen år. Riks-
antikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter 38.
Schmidt Sabo, Katalin 2005. Den medeltida byns sociala dimensioner. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeolo-
giska undersökningar. Skrifter 67.
Schulz, Eeva-Liisa 1986. Ein Eisenverhüttungsplatz aus der Älteren Eisenzeit in Kajaani. Iskos 6: 169-173.
Schulz, Eeva-Liisa 1999. Red Ochre Grave at Äkälänniemi in Kajaani, North Finland. In: Huurre,
Matti (ed.), Dig it all. Papers dedicated to Ari Siiriäinen. The Finnish Antiquarian Society, The
Archaeological Society of Finland. Jyväskylä: 219-224.

425
Schönbäck, Bengt 1959. Bronsåldersbygd i Mälarområdet. Tor Vol. V: 52-107.
Seger, Tapio 1983. The Plague of Justinian and Other Scourges. An analysis of the Anomalies in the
Development of the Iron Age population in Finland. Fornvännen 77: 184-197.
Seger, T. 1984. Rasselenie v zpohu železnogo veka (statističeskij analiz). In: Kirpitśnikov, A. N., Riba­
kov, B. A. & Rjabinin, E. A. (eds.), Novoe v arheologii CCP i Finljandii. Doklady Tret”ego sovetsko-
finljandskogo cimpoziuma po voprosam arheologii 11-15 maja 1981 g. Leningrad: 100-112.
Seger, Tapio 1986a. Trofastbacken: Excavation of a Pre-Roman House in Korsnäs, S. Ostrobothnia,
Finland. Iskos 6: 175-184.
Seger, Tapio 1986b. Orrmoan: A Pre-Roman Dwelling site in Korsnäs, S. Ostrobothnia, Finland. Finskt
Museum 1986: 22-32.
Seger, Tapio 1986c. Förromerska järnåldersboplatser i Korsnäs. Fasta fornminnen i Korsnäs. Korsnäs
Hembygdsförening. Vasa: 23-27.
Seger, Tapio 1987. Refuse faunas from the Pre-Roman sites of Trofastbacken and Orrmoan in Korsnäs,
S. Ostrobothnia, Finland. Suomen Museo 1987: 40-44.
Seger, Tapio 1988. Heinolan esihistoria. In: Heinolan pitäjän historia 1860-luvulle. Jyväskylä: 17-73.
Seitsonen, Oula 2005. Vielä kivikautisesta sodankäynnistä. Muinaistutkija 2/2005: 42-49.
Selinge, Klas-Göran 1986. Fornlämningar och bebyggelsehistoria – inledning. Bebyggelsehistorisk tid­
skrift Nr 11: 3-7.
Selinge, Klas-Göran 1989. Det närvarande förflutna. 50 år med fornminnesinventeringen. Riksantikva­
rieämbetets och Statens historiska museers årsbok 1987-88: 7-32.
Seppä-Heikka, Merja 1983. Esihistoriallisia siemeniä ja kasvipainanteita Paimion Sievolan myöhäis-
rautakautiselta asuinpaikalta. Karhunhammas 7: 39-46.
Seppä-Heikka, Merja 1985. Grains and seeds from younger Roman Iron Age excavations in Spurila.
Iskos 5: 460-461.
Seppälä, Sirkka 1999. Rapolan esihistoriaa. Masunni 3: 89-108.
Shemesh, A., Rosqvist, G., Rietti-Shati, M., Rubensdotter, L., Bigler, C.,Yam, R. & Karlén, W. 2001. Ho-
locene climatic change in Swedish Lapland inferred from an oxygen-isotope record of lacustrine
biogenic silica. The Holocene 11, 4: 447-454.
Sherratt, Andrew 1992. What can archaeologists learn from Annalistes? In: Knapp, Bernard A. (ed.),
Archaeology, Annales, and ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge: 133-142.
Sherratt, Andrew 1993. What would a Bronze-Age world system look like? Relations between tempe­
rate Europe and the Mediterranean in later prehistory. Journal of European Archaeology 1.2: 1-57.
Siiriäinen, Ari 1964. Kemijärven Jatulinsaari. Suomen Museo LXXI: 26-39.
Siiriäinen, Ari 1969. Über die Chronologie der steinzeitlichen Küstenwohnplätze Finnlands im Lich-
te der Uferschiebung. Suomen Museo 1969: 40-73.
Siiriäinen, Ari 1974. Studies Relating to Shore Displacement and Stone Age Chronology in Finland.
Finskt Museum 1973: 5-22.
Siiriäinen, Ari 1981. On the Cultural Ecology of the Finnish Stone Age. Suomen Museo 1980: 5-40.
Siiriäinen, Ari 1982a. Recent Studies on the Stone Age Economy in Finland. Fennoscandia Antiqua I: 17-26.
Siiriäinen, Ari 1982b. Jordbruket i Finland under stenåldern - en arkeologisk kommentar. In: Sjøvold,
Thorleif (ed.), Introduksjonen av jordbruk i Norden. Foredrag holdt ved fellesnordisk symposium i Oslo
april 1980. Det Norske Videnskabs-Akademi / Universitetsforlaget.
Siiriäinen, Ari 1984. Bromarv and Luopioinen: Two Early Bronze Age Finds from Finland. Fennoscan­
dia archaeologica I: 51-56.
Silkkilä, Onni & Koskinen, Aarre 1990. Lounais-Suomen kulttuurikasvistoa. Eräiden kartanoiden,
kirkkojen, pappiloiden ja virkatalojen kasvistosta. Turun maakuntamuseo. Raportteja 12.

426
Simola, Heikki, Grönlund, Elisabeth, Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka & Huttunen, Pertti 1991. Savolainen
väestöräjähdys. In: Saimaalta Kolille. Karjalan tutkimuslaitoksen 20-vuotiskirja. Joensuu: 241-259.
Smart, Barry 2002. Michel Foucault. Revised Edition. Routledge: London and New York.
Smeds, Helmer 1948. Skärgårdens kulturlandskap. In: Skärgårdsboken utgiven av Nordenskiöld-Samfun­
det i Finland. Helsingfors: 529-558.
Smith, Michael E. 1992. Braudel’s temporal rythms and chronological theory in archaeology. In:
Knapp, Bernard A. (ed.), Archaeology, Annales, and ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge: 23-34.
Šnē, Andris 2000a. Vara un vadonība lībiešu sabiedrībās aizvēstures beigās. Latvijas Vēstures Muzeja
Raksti Nr. 7: 141-148.
Šnē, Andris 2000b. Agrās pilsētas, rezidences, nocietinājumi… Dienvidaustrumlatvijas dzelzs laik-
meta pilskalni sociālpolitskā kontekstā. Šnē, Andris & Urtāns, Juris (eds.), Arheoloģiskie pieminekļi,
arheoloģiskās vietas. Riga.
Šnē, Andris 2001a. Hillforts of the Late Prehistoric Livs: Evidence for Chiefdom? In: Lübeck style? Nov­
gorod style? Baltic Rim Central Places as Areas for Cultural Encounters and Urbanisation 1100 - 1400
AD. Transactions of the central level symposium of the Cultural Clash or Compromise (CCC) project held
in Talsi September 18-21 1998. CCC papers: 5. Riga: 337-343.
Šnē, Andris 2001b. Society and power in the late prehistoric chiefdoms of the livs. Prehistoria 2000
1/2001: 102-114.
Šnē, Andris 2005a. Archaeological evidence of social relations and power in the late prehistoric socie­
ties of the Livs. In: Mäntylä, Sari (ed.), Rituals and Relations. Studies on the society and material cul­
ture of the Baltic Finns. Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia. Humaniora 336: 169-185.
Šnē, Andris 2005b. Understanding Power: On the Study of Late Prehistoric Social and Political Struc-
tures in Latvia. In: Lang, Valter (ed.), Culture and Material Culture. Papers from the first theoretical
seminar of the Baltic archaeologists (BASE) held at the University of Tartu, Estonia, October 17th -19th,
2003. Interarchaeologia, 1: 53-70.
Šnore, E. 1935. Dignājas pilskalns (īss pārskats par 1939. G. izrakumiem). Senatne un Māksla IV, 1939: 46-64.
Solantie, Reijo 2005. Aspects
��������������������������������������������������������������������������������
of some prehistoric cultures in relation to climate in southwestern Fin-
land. Fennoscandia archaeologica XXII: 28-42.
Sporrong, Ulf 1971. Kolonisation, bebyggelseutveckling och administration. Studier i agrar kulturlandskaps­
utveckling under vikingatid och tidig medeltid med exempel från Uppland och Närke. Lund.
Steane, John M. 2001. The Archaeology of Power. England and Northern Europe AD 800-1600. Tempus Publishing.
Stenberger, Mårten 1964. Det forntida Sverige. Uppsala.
Stenbäck, Niklas 1998. Gropkeramiken på Åland. Förändringar i materiell kultur i början av mellan-
neolitikum. In: Aktuell Arkeologi VI. Stockholm Archaeological Reports Nr. 35: 89-105.
Stenbäck, Niklas 2003. Människorna vid havet. Platser och keramik på Ålandsöarna perioden 3500-2000 f.Kr.
Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 28.
Steponaitis, V. 2000. Bronze and Early Iron Age 18th c. B.C. up to the time of Christ. In: Prehistoric
Lithuania. Archaeological exposition guide. National Museum of Lithuania: 58-63.
Stjernquist, Berta 1956. Einige Halsringe aus der Wende der Bronzezeit. Meddelanden från Lunds uni­
versitets historiska museum. K. humanistiska vetenskapssamfundets i Lund årsberättelse 1955-
1956, III: 59-92.
Stjernquist, Berta 1992. Introduction. In: Larsson, Lars, Callmer, Johan & Stjernquist, Berta (eds.), The
archaeology of the cultural landsape. Field work and research in a south Swedish rural region. Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 4°. N° 19: 9-16.
Storå, Jan 2000. Sealing and animal husbandry in the Ålandic Middle and Late Neolithic. Fennoscan­
dia archaeologica XVII: 57-81.

427
Strandberg, Nina 1996. Kaarina Hulkkio - varhaismetallikauden ja vanhemman rautakauden kohtaa-
mispaikka. In: Ranta, Helena (ed.), Kentältä Poimittua 3. Kirjoitelmia arkeologian alalta. Museo­
viraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja N:o 6: 37-45.
Strandberg, Nina 1998. Rakennukset Kaarinan Hulkkion varhaismetallikautisella ja rautakautisella
asuinpaikalla. Muinaistutkija 1/1998: 2-12.
Strandberg, Nina 2002. ������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Houses by the shore - Early Metal Age and Iron Age houses at Hulkkio in Kaari-
na and Böle in Porvoo. In: Ranta, Helena (ed.), Huts and houses. Stone Age and Early Metal Age build­
ings in Finland. National Board of Antiquities. Jyväskylä: 211-226.
Stuiver, M., Reimer, P. J., Bard, E., Beck, J. W., Burr, G. S., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G.,
v. d. Plicht, J., and Spurk, M. 1998. INTCAL98 Radiocarbon age calibration 24,000 - 0 cal BP.
Radiocarbon 40: 1041-1083.
Šturms, Ed. 1935. Die Kulturbeziehungen Estlands in der Bronze- und frühen Eisenzeit. Õpetatud Ees­
ti Seltsi Aastaraamat 1932: 245-277.
Ståhlbom, Ulf 1994. Bodde de här, de som gjorde de berömda hällristningarna? Populär Arkeologi
2/1994: 24-26.
Suhonen, Mervi 2005. Way of life – a useful concept in archaeology? In: Mäntylä, Sari (ed.), Rituals and
Relations. Studies on the society and material culture of the Baltic Finns. Suomalaisen Tiedeakate­mian
Toimituksia. Humaniora 336: 149-168.
Suistoranta, Kari 1985. Paraisten historia. Turku.
Suistoranta, Kari 1997. Kemiön suurpitäjän historia I. Tammisaari: 11-212.
Suomen tilastollinen vuosikirja 1998. Tilastokeskus. Hämeenlinna.
Suvanto, Seppo 1973. Satakunnan historia III. Keskiaika. Satakunnan maakuntaliitto r.y.
Säfvestad, Ulf & Björhem, Nils 1989. Från stolphål till stamterritorier. Ett försök att se mönster i syd-
västskånsk bebyggelse. In: Bosättningsmönster. Kontaktstencil 30-31: 43-71.
Söyrinki-Harmo, Leena 1996. The Formation of the Vainionmäki cemetery. In: Purhonen, Paula (ed.),
Vainionmäki – a Merovingian Period Cemetery in Laitila, Finland. National Board of Antiquities.
Vammala: 102-118.
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1982. Hollolan Kapatuosian linnamäki. Fennoscandia Antiqua I: 27-35.
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1987. Suomalaiset limousiinit. In: Tutkimustyö ja museotoimi. Juhlakirja Knut Draken
täyttäessä 60 vuotta 6.3.1987. Koteva Oy: 94-101.
Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka 1989. Finnish Limousines. Fundamental Questions about the Organizing
Process of the Early Church in Finland. Medium Aevum Quatidianum 19: 75-88.
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1990. Ancient Hillforts of Finland. Problems of Analysis, Chronology and Interpretation
with Special Reference to the Hillfort of Kuhmoinen. Finska Fornminnesföreningens Tidskrift 94.
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1992. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������
Cemeteries or refuse heaps? Archaeological formation processes and the in-
terpretation of sites and antiquities. Suomen Museo 1991: 5-14.
Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka 1999a. Etnisiteetin määrittelyn ongelmat ja savolainen kaskikulttuuri. In:
Fogelberg, Paul (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till
kännedom av Finlands natur och folk 153: 353-357.
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 1999b. Kun nuoruus on ongelma. – Rapolan muinaislinnan keskuslinna-ajatuksen
purkuyritys. Masunni. Kirjoituksia Tampereelta ja Pirkanmaalta 3: 131-166.
Taavitsainen, J.-P. 2000. Häme ja Satakunta pakanuuden ajan lopulla. In: Linder, Marja-Liisa, Salonie-
mi, Marjo-Riitta & Krötzl, Christian (eds.), Ristin ja Olavin kansaa. Keskiajan usko ja kirkko Hämees­
sä ja Satakunnassa. Tampereen museoiden julkaisuja 55: 19-29.
Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka 2003a. Lapinraunioiden kronologis-funktionaalisten kysymysten hahmot-
telua – uusia AMS-ajoituksia Keski-Suomen lapinraunioiden palaneesta luusta. Muinaistutkija
1/2003: 2-23.

428
Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka 2003b. Lapp Cairns as a Source on Metal Period Settlement in the Inland
Regions of Finland. Acta Borealia 1/2003: 21-47.
Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka 2003c. Nuijaniemen lapinraunio. Pirkan maan alta 4: 5-12.
Taavitsainen, J.-P., Sepänmaa, Timo, Miettinen, Mirja, Storå, Jan & Saarnisto, Matti 2004. Hietamäki in
Jämsä – a multi-period dwelling site in Central Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica XXI: 3-21.
Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka, Simola, Heikki & Grönlund, Elisabeth 1998. Cultivation History Beyond
the Periphery: Early Agriculture in the North European Boreal Forest. Journal of World Prehisto­
ry, Vol. 12, No. 2: 199-253.
Taavitsainen, J.-P., Vilkuna, Janne & Forssell, Henry 2007. Suojoki at Keuruu. A mid 14th-century site
of the wilderness culture in the light of settlement historical processes in Central Finland. Annal­
en Academiœ Scientiarum Fennicœ. Humaniora 346.
Tabaczyński, Stanisław 1998. Archaeological sources: Problems of identification and inference. In:
Tabaczyński, Stanisław (ed.), Theory and practice of archaeological research. Volume III. Dialogue with the
data: The archaeology of complex societies and its context in the ´90s. Institute of archaeology and ethno­
logy. Committee of Pre- and Protohistoric sciences. Polish academy of sciences. Warszawa: 33-63.
Taivainen, Jouni 2005. Ajatuksia Retulansaaren rautakauden – keskiajan asutuksesta ja elinkeinoista.
Arx Tavastica 12: 2-17.
Takala, Hannu 2004. The Ristola Site in Lahti and the Earliest Postglacial Settlement of South Finland.
Lahti City Museum. Jyväskylä.
Tallgren, A. M. 1906. Tre nya bronsåldersfynd från Finland. Suomen Museo Finskt Museum XIII: 42-48.
Tallgren, A. M. 1931. Varsinais-Suomen esihistoria. Varsinais-Suomen historia I. Turku.
Tallgren, A. M. 1933. Hiisi ja moisio. Virittäjä 1933: 319-331.
Talvio, Tuukka 1994. Tutkijoita, keräilijöitä ja lahjoittajia. Suomalaisia numismaatikkoja 1700-1917. Suomen
numismaattisen Yhdistyksen julkaisuja n:o 4.
Talvio, Tuukka 2002. Coins and coin finds in Finland AD 800-1200. Iskos 12.
Talvio, Tuukka 2004: Coin datings in Finnish archaeology. In: Uino, Pirjo (ed.), Fenno-ugri et slavi 2002.
Dating and Chronology. Museoviraston arkeologian osaston julkaisuja N:o 10: 124-127.
Tamla, Toomas 1995. Einige estnische Moorfunde aus dem ersten Jahrtausend. In: Jansson, Ingmar
(ed.), Archaeology East and West of the Baltic. Papers from the Second Estonian-Swedish Archaeological
Symposium. Sigtuna, May 1991. Theses and Papers in Archaeology N.S. A 7. Stockholm: 103-110.
Tesch, Sten 1993. Houses, Farmsteads, and Long-term Change. A Regional Study of Prehistoric Settlements
in the Köpinge Area, in Scania, Southern Sweden. Lund.
Thedéen, Susanne 2004. Gränser i livet – gränser i landskapet. Gränsrelationer och rituella praktiker i söder­
manländska bronsålderslandskap. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 33.
Thrane, Henrik 1977. Afsluttende bemærkninger. In: Thrane, Henrik (ed.), Kontinuitet oq bebyggelse.
Beretning fra et symposium d. 12.-14. Maj 1977 afholdt af Odense universitet. Odense Universitet.
Skrifter fra institut for historie og samfundsvidenskab nr. 22: 117-123.
Thrane, Henrik 1994. Centres of Wealth in Northern Europe. In: Kristiansen, Kristian & Jensen, Jør-
gen (eds.), Europe in the First Millennium B.C. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 6: 95-110.
Tikkanen, Matti & Westerholm, John 1992. Kimitoön - en regionalgeografisk analys. Bidrag till kännedom
av Finlands natur och folk 143. Helsingfors.
Tilley, Christopher 1994. A Phenomenology of Landscape. Places, Paths and Monuments. Berg Publishers:
Oxford / Providence, USA.
Toiviainen, Eino 1938. Uukuniemen ukonvakat ja Mantsinsaaren härkäpäivät. Nuori Karjala 1938: 75-78.
Tolonen, Kimmo, Tolonen, Mirja, Honkasalo, Liisa, Lehtovaara, Anja, Sorsa, Kirsti & Sundberg, Kaj
1976. Esihistoriallisen ja historiallisen maankäytön vaikutuksesta Lammin Lampellonjärven
kehitykseen. Luonnon Tutkija 80: 1-15.

429
Tolonen, Kimmo, Siiriäinen, Ari & Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1979. Iron Age cultivation in SW Finland.
Finskt Museum 1976: 5-66.
Tolonen, M. 1978a. Paleoecology of annually laminated sediments in Lake Ahvenainen, S. Finland. I. Pol-
len and charcoal analyses and their relation to human impact. Annales Botanici Fennici 15: 177-208.
Tolonen, M. 1978b. Paleoecology of annually laminated sediments in Lake Ahvenainen, S. Finland.
III. Human influence in the lake development. Annales Botanici Fennici 15: 223-240.
Tolonen, Mirjami 1983. Late Holocene vegetational history in Salo, Pukkila, SW Finland, with parti-
cular reference to human interference. Annales Botanici Fennici 20: 157-168.
Tolonen, Mirjami 1985a. Development of vegetation and changes in landscape caused by traditional
land use in the Paimio area. Iskos 5: 472-479.
Tolonen, Mirjami 1985b. Palaeoecological reconstruction of vegetation in a prehistoric settlement
area, Salo, SW Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 22: 101-116.
Tolonen, Mirjami 1987a. Primary and secondary forest successions reflected in a Late Holocene pollen
sequence from an upland mire near the SW coast of Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 24: 97-109.
Tolonen, Mirjami 1987b. Vegetational history in coastal SW Finland studied on a lake and a peat bog
by pollen and charcoal analyses. Annales Botanici Fennici 24: 353-370.
Tolonen, Mirjami & Kukkonen, Ilkka 1989. Postglacial landscape development in the lower reaches of
the River Paimionjoki, SW Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 26: 53-85.
Tornberg, Matleena 1989. Ilmaston- ja sadonvaihtelut Lounais-Suomessa 1550-luvulta 1860-luvulle.
In: Kuparinen, Eero (ed.), Työ tekijäänsä kiittää. Pentti Virrankoski 60 vuotta 20.6.1989. Turun Histo-
riallinen Arkisto 44: 58-87.
Tõnisson, Evald 1985. Zum Problem der großen wetestnischen Wallburgen. In: Loit, Aleksander & Se-
lirand, Jüri (eds.), Die V��������������������������������������������������������������������������
erbindungen zwischen Skandinavien und Ostbaltikum aufgrund der archäologi­
schen Quellenmaterialen. I. Symposium der sowjetestnischen und schwedischen Archäologen. Tallinn 12.-
15. Oktober 1982. Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis. Studia Baltica Stockholmiensia 1: 99-110.
Tuan, Yi-Fu 1977. Space and place. The perspective of experience. Edward Arnold: London.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1980. Mäkelä ja Peltomäki: kaksi hautarauniota Ulvilassa. Karhunhammas 4: 181-193.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1985. Saaristomeren varhaismetallikautiset hautarauniot. Karhunhammas 10: 31-89.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1988. ��������������������������������������������������������������������������
Klingande sten, uppradad sten – två maritima fornlämningar i Nagu och Kor-
po skärgård. In: Korkeakoski-Väisänen, Kristiina, Lähdesmäki, Ulla, Nissinaho, Aino, Pihlman,
Sirkku & Tuovinen, Tapani (eds.), Baskerilinja. Unto Salo 60 vuotta. Vammala: 111-119.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1990a. Fornfynden och deras uttolkning. In: “Finska skären”. Studier i åboländsk
kulturhistoria utgivna av Konstsamfundet till dess 50-årsjubileum 1990. Helsingfors: 15-113.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1990b. Om maritim anpassning. Skärgård 3/1990: 14-19.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1993. Turunmaan saariston ja Kemiönsaaren kivirauniot. In: Purhonen, Paula (ed.),
Lapinraunioita ja hiidenkiukaita. Kansallismuseossa 17.10.1991 pidetyn ”Epämääräisiä kiviröykkiöitä”
koskevan seminaarin alustukset. Museovirasto. Arkeologian osasto. Julkaisu N:o 3: 37-47.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1997. De arkeologiska fynden. In: En bok om Houtskär I. Bygdens öden till slutet av
1800-talet. Vasa: 13-32.
Tuovinen, Tapani 2000a. Ulkosaariston arkeologiaa. Saaristomeren kansallispuiston yhteistoiminta-alueen
inventointi 1994-1997. Metsähallituksen luonnonsuojelujulkaisuja. Sarja A, No 122.
Tuovinen, Tapani 2000b. Löytö toteuttaa etsijän tahtoa. In: Maaranen, Päivi & Kirkinen, Tuija (eds.), Arkeo­
loginen inventointi. Opas inventoinnin suunnitteluun ja toteuttamiseen. Museovirasto. Helsinki: 33-41.
Tuovinen, Tapani 2002a. The Burial Cairns and the Landscape in the Archipelago of Åboland, SW Finland,
in the Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Acta Universitatis Ouluensis B Humaniora 46.
Tuovinen, Tapani 2002b. Järnåldersgravar i Åbolands yttre skärgård. In: Ivars, Ann-Marie & Huldén,
Lena (eds.), När kom svenskarna till Finland? Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland. Ekenäs: 107-118.

430
Tuovinen, Tapani 2005a. Kring skärgårdsarkeologi. Nordenskiöld-samfundets tidskrift 65: 5-23.
Tuovinen, Tapani 2005b. Landskapsarkeologi i Åbolands skärgård. Maritimhistorisk konferens Bottnisk
kontakt XII. Forum Marinum i Åbo 6-8- februari 2004. Meddelanden från Sjöhistoriska institutet vid
Åbo Akademi Nr 27: 211-222.
Tuovinen, Tapani, Ek, Paul, Huldén, Stig-Göran & Kroneld, Rolf 1992. Geokemi och arkeologi på
Borgholm, en fornborg i Iniö. Finskt Museum 1991: 29-40.
Tuovinen, Tapani & Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 1992. Luettelo Suomen rannikon hautaraunioista. Karhun­
hammas 14: 9-122.
Tusa, Maija 1993. Kylän muodostuminen - Kernaalanjärven pohjoisrannan asutushistoriaa. In: RASI. Interac­
tion between Coastal and Inland Societies in the Iron Age I. Helsinki Papers in Archaeology No. 5: 49-75.
Tvauri, Andres 1997. Eesti lohukivid. In: Valk, Heiki (ed.), Arheoloogilisi uurimusi 1. Tartu Ülikooli Ar-
heoloogia Kabineti Toimetised 9: 11-53.
Uino, P. 1982. Investigations of Iron Age dwelling places in Isokylä, Salo, South-West Finland: An ar-
chaeological review. In: Second Nordic conference on the application of scientific methods in archaeolo­
gy. Pact 7/1982: 123-128.
Uino, Pirjo 1986. An Iron Age community at Ketohaka in Salo and other remains of Metal Period
buildings in Finland. In: Iron Age studies in Salo I-II. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aika­
kauskirja 89:1: 25-201.
Uino, Pirjo 1997. Ancient Karelia. Archaeological studies – Muinais-Karjala. Arkeologisia tutkimuksia.
Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 104.
Uino, Pirjo 2000. Inventoinnin raportointi ja muinaisjäännösrekisteri - alustava ohjeisto. In: Maara-
nen, Päivi & Kirkinen, Tuija (eds.), Arkeologinen inventointi. Opas inventoinnin suunnitteluun ja
toteuttamiseen. Museovirasto. Helsinki: 236-245.
Ukkonen, Pirkko 1996. Osteological analysis of the refuse fauna in the Lake Saimaa rea. In: Kirkinen,
Tuija (ed.), Environmental Studies in Eastern Finland. Reports of the Ancient lake Saimaa Project. Hel-
sinki Papers in Archaeology. No. 8: 63-91.
Uotila, Kari 1998. Medieval Outer Baileys in Finland, With Special Reference to Turku Castle. Archaeolo-
����������
gia Medii Aevi Finlandiae III.
Uotila, Kari 2003. Keskiajan kirkot ja linnat. In: Kaitanen, Veijo, Laukkanen, Esa & Uotila, Kari (eds.),
Muinainen Kalanti ja sen naapurit. Talonpojan maailma rautakaudelta keskiajalle. Suomalaisen Kirjal-
lisuuden Seuran Toimituksia 825. Hämeenlinna: 366-374.
Vahtola, Jouko 1988. Keskiaika. In: Suomen historian pikkujättiläinen. Porvoo: 40-125.
Vandkilde, Helle, Rahbek, Uffe & Lund Rasmussen, Kaare 1996. Radiocarbon dating and the chrono­
logy of Bronze Age southern Scandinavia. In: Randsborg, Klavs (ed.), Absolute Chronology.
Archaeological Europe 2500-500 BC. Acta Archaeologica vol. 67: 183-198.
Vanhatalo, Simo 1994. Ett märkligt boplatsfynd - en fibula från bronsåldern. Finskt Museum 1992: 5-10.
Vankina, L. 1962. Kalniešu pirmais kapulauks. Latvijas PSR Vēstures muzeja raksti. Arheoloģija. Riga: 7-36.
Vasks, A.V. 1991. Keramika epohi pozdnei bronzi i rannegoželeza Latvii. Riga.
Vasks, Andrejs 1994a. Brikuļu nocietinātā apmetne. Lubāna zemiene vēlajā bronzas un dzelzs laikmetā (1000.
g.pr.Kr.-1000.g.pēc Kr.). Riga.
Vasks, A. 1994b. Agrā dzelzs laikmeta apmetne Kerkūzos. Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XVI: 46-64.
Vasks, A. 1994c. Tīģeļi un lejamveidnes Brikuļu nocietinātajā apmetnē. Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XVII:
120-123.
Vasks, Andrejs 1995. New data on Early Iron Age settlement in south-eastern Latvia. In: Kazakevičius,
Vytautas & Sidrys, Raymond (eds.), Archaeologia Baltica. Vilnius: 57-80.
Vasks, Andrejs 1999. Latvian archaeology: research and conclusions. In: Jensen, Ola W. & Karlsson,
Håkan & Vijups, Armands (eds.), Inside Latvian Archaeology. Gotarc Series A, Vol. 2: 3-88.

431
Vasks, Andrejs 2001. Agrais dzelzs laikmets 1.–.400. g. Latvijas senākā vēsture 9. g. pr. Kr.–1200. g. Riga: 186-231.
Vasks, Andrejs 2006. Stone Grave Cemeteries in Western Latvia. In: Etnos ja Kultuur. Uurimusi Silvia
Laulu auks. Muinasaja teadus 18: 99-110.
Vassar, A. 1938. Drei Steinkistengräber aus Nordestland. Őpetatud Eesti Seltsi Aastaraamat 1937, I: 304-364.
Vassar, A. 1956. Lisandeid eesti hõimudest I aastatuhande viimasel poolel e. m. a. ja meie ajaarvutu-
se I aastatuhande algupoolel. In: Moora, H. (ed.), Eesti rahva etnilisest ajaloost. Artiklite kogumik.
Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus: Tallinn: 160-190.
Vedru, Gurly 2001. Põhja-Eesti muinasaegsest rannikukasutusest. Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri 5, 2: 110-127.
Vencl, Sl. 1984. War and Warfare in Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3: 116-132.
Venclová, Natalie 1995. Settlement area, production area and industrial zone. �����������������������
In: �������������������
Kuna, Martin & Ven-
clová, Natalie (eds.), Whither Archaeology? Papers in Honour of Evžen Neustupný. Praha: 161-169.
Vikkula, Anne, Seppälä, Sirkka-Liisa & Lempiäinen, Terttu 1994. The ancient field of Rapola. Fenno­
scandia archaeologica XI: 41-59.
Viklund, Karin 2002. Österbottens järnåldersbygd och kontinuitetesproblematiken. In: Viklund, Ka-
rin & Gullberg, Kurt (eds.), Från romartid till vikingatid. Pörnullbacken – en järnålderstida bosättning
i Österbotten. Acta Antiqua Ostrobotniensia 5: 25-44.
Vilkuna, Janne 1978. Julius Ailion muinaistieteelliset tutkimukset. Sosialistinen Aikakauslehti 1/1978: 25-29.
Vilkuna, Janne 1996. Siperiasta vai? Uusia tulkintoja suomalaisten alkuperästä. In: Roiko-Jokela, Heik-
ki (ed.), Siperiasta siirtoväkeen. Murrosaikoja ja käännekohtia Suomen historiassa. Jyväskylä: 7-30.
Vilkuna, Janne 1999. Keski-Suomen esihistoria. In: Jokipii, Mauno (ed.), Keski-Suomen historia 1. Keski-
Suomen vanhin historia. Jyväskylä: 32-77.
Vilkuna, Kustaa 1964. Kihlakunta ja häävuode. Tutkielmia suomalaisen yhteiskunnan järjestäytymisen
vaiheilta. Keuruu.
Vilkuna, Kustaa 1976. Lehmän kotiutuminen perheeseen, naudan asettuminen yhteiskuntaan. Virit­
täjä 1/1976: 19-30.
Villstrand, Nils 1987. Befolkningen i Kimitobygden. Kimitobygdens historia III. Ekenäs: 15-72.
Vita-Finzi, C. & Higgs, E. S. 1970. Prehistoric Economy in the Mount Carmel Area of Palestine: Site
Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society XXXVI: 1-37.
Voionmaa, Väinö 1911. Suomen vanhin maakunta- ja pitäjälaitos. Suomalainen tiedeakatemia: Esitelmät
ja pöytäkirjat 1911, I.
Voionmaa, Väinö 1912. Suomalaisia keskiajan tutkimuksia. Veroja, laitoksia, virkamiehiä. Porvoo.
Vuorela, Irmeli 1972. Human Influence on the Vegetation of Katinhäntä Bog, Vihti, SW Finland. Acta
Botanica Fennica 98: 1-21.
Vuorela, Irmeli 1975. Pollen Analysis as a Means of Tracing settlement History in SW Finland. Acta
Botanica Fennica 104: 1-48.
Vuorela, Irmeli 1982. Tidigt jordbruk i S-SW Finland enligt pollenanalys och C-14-dateringar. In: Sjø-
vold, Thorleif (ed.), Introduksjonen av jordbruk i Norden. Foredrag holdt ved fellesnordisk symposium
i Oslo april 1980. Universitetsforlaget: 253-266.
Vuorela, Irmeli 1983. Vohtenkellarinsuo, a bog in Paimio, SW Finland with a cultural origin. Bulletin
of the Geological Society of Finland 55, 1: 57-66.
Vuorela, Irmeli 1985. On the vegetational and agricultural history of Perniö, SW Finland. Results of
pollen and ash residue analyses and 14C-datings. Annales Botanici Fennici 22: 117-127.
Vuorela, Irmeli 1990. Pollenanalytiska studier. In:“Finska skären”. Studier i åboländsk kulturhistoria
utgivna av Konstsamfundet till dess 50-årsjubileum 1990. Helsingfors: 115-132.
Vuorela, Irmeli 1998. The Transition to Farming in Southern Finland. In: Zvelebil, Marek, Domańska,
Lucyna & Dennell, Robin (eds.), Harvesting the Sea, Farming the Forest. The Emergence of Neolithic
Societies in the Baltic Region. Sheffield Archaeological Monographs 10: 175-180.

432
Vuorela, Irmeli 1999. Viljelytoiminnan
����������������������������������������������������������������������������
alku Suomessa paleoekologisen tutkimuksen kohteena. In: Fo-
gelberg, Paul (ed.), Pohjan poluilla. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutkimuksen mukaan. Bidrag till känne-
dom av Finlands natur och folk 153: 143-151.
Vuorela, Irmeli 2002. Luonnon kerrostumat säilövät menneisyyttä. In: Grünthal, Riho (ed.), Ennen,
muinoin. Miten menneisyyttämme tutkitaan. Tietolipas 180. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Hel-
sinki: 76-92.
Vuorela, Irmeli & Lempiäinen, Terttu 1988. Arhaeobotany of the site of the oldest cereal grain find in
Finland. Annales Botanici Fennici 25: 33-45.
Vuorela, Irmeli, Saarnisto, Matti, Lempiäinen, Terttu & Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka 2001. Stone Age to
recent land-use history at Pegrema, northern Lake Onega, Russian Karelia. Vegetation History and
Archaeobotany (2001) 10: 121-138.
Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 1993. Pikku-Myy-projekti - mitä se on? Varelia 2/1993: 17-23.
Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 1997. Rakentamisesta Raision Mullissa rautakauden lopulla ja varhaiskeski­
ajalla. Muinaistutkija 4/1997: 45-48.
Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 2000a. Röykkiöiden inventointia lounaisessa Suomessa. In: Maaranen, Päivi &
Kirkinen, Tuija (eds.), Arkeologinen inventointi. Opas inventoinnin suunnitteluun ja toteuttamiseen.
Museovirasto. Helsinki: 180-184.
Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 2000b. Frequency of Early Metal Period and Iron Age archaeological remains in
the northern part of SW Finland. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Sites and settlement. Turku: 193-197.
Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 2000c. On the spatial relationships between Iron Age cemeteries and dwelling
sites in northern Finland Proper. In: Nissinaho, Aino (ed.), Sites and settlement. Turku: 199-224.
Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 2000d. Iron Age research in Finland Proper. Chronological and spatial review
of the Iron Age sites investigated by archaeological excavations in Finland Proper. In: Nissinaho,
Aino (ed.), Sites and settlement. Turku: 225-276.
Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 2003. Hallitalo ja hirsirakennus – elämää ahtaassa asumuksessa mutta väljässä
pihapiirissä. In: Kaitanen, Veijo, Laukkanen, Esa & Uotila, Kari (eds.), Muinainen Kalanti ja sen
naapurit. Talonpojan maailma rautakaudelta keskiajalle. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seuran Toimi­
tuksia 825. Hämeenlinna: 185-198.
Vähäkangas, Ismo 2006. Vapaudenajalta kunnallishallinnon perustamiseen (1721-1868). In: Pylkkänen,
Ali, Vähäkangas, Ismo & Laine Esko M., Joki yhdisti ihmiset – Salon ja Uskelan historia n. 1150-1868.
Salon kaupunki. Gummerus kirjapaino Oy.
Välimäki, Hannu 2000. Raamatusta ruokalisään. Kirkollisverotuksen taustaa ja alkuvaiheita Suomes-
sa. In: Lappalainen, Jussi T. (ed.), Verotushistoriaa 2. Turun yliopiston historian laitoksen julkaisu-
ja 58: 47-72.
Wahlberg, Jan-Erik 1994. Kuusiston linnasaaren kehitys keskiajalla. In: Kuusiston linna. Tutkimuksia
1985-1993. Museoviraston rakennushistorian osaston raportteja 8: 66-78.
Wall, Åsa 2002. Borderline Viewpoints. The Early Iron Age Landscapes of Henged Mountains in East
Central Sweden. Current Swedish Archaeology, Vol. 10. 2002: 95-114.
Wall, Åsa 2003. De hägnade bergens landskap. Om den äldre järnåldern på Södertörn. Stockholm Stu­dies
in Archaeology 27.
Wallerstein, Immanuel 1974. The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture an the Origins of the Euro­
pean World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.
Węgrzynowicz, Teresa 1995. On the need to discuss the relationship between Pomeranian and Cloche
Grave Cultures. In: Węgrzynowicz, Teresa, Andrzejowska, Miroslawa, Andrzejowski, Jacek &
Radziszewska, Elżbieta (eds.), Kultura pomorska i kultura grobów kloszowych. Razem czy osobno?
Materiały z konferencij w dniach 24_26 listopada 1993. Warszawa: 17-18.

433
Węgrzynowicz, Teresa, Andrzejowska, Miroslawa, Andrzejowski, Jacek & Radziszewska, Elżbieta
(eds.), Kultura pomorska i kultura grobów kloszowych. Razem czy osobno? Materiały z konferencij w
dniach 24_26 listopada 1993. Warszawa.
Welinder, Stig 1979. Prehistoric demography. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series in 8°minore. N° 8.
Welinder, Stig 1984. Ekologisk arkeologi – hur en forskningsinriktning kommer och går. In: Foredrag
holdt på norsk arkeologmøtes symposium i Trondheim 1983. Det Kgl. Norske Videnskabers Selskab,
Muséet, Rapport. Arkeologisk serie 1984:1: 111-117.
Welinder, Stig 1986. Det arkeologiska perspektivet. Från forntid och medeltid 9. Lund.
Welinder, Stig 1992. Människor och landskap. Aun 15.
Welinder, Stig 1998. Neoliticum - bronsålder 3900-500 f.Kr. In: Welinder, Stig, Pedersen, Ellen Anne
& Widgren, Mats, Jordbrukets första femtusen år. Det svenska jordbrukets historia. Borås: 11-236.
Wickholm, Anna & Raninen, Sami 2003. Rautakautinen riesa – polttokenttäkalmistojen problematiik-
kaa. Muinaistutkija 2/2003: 2-14.
Widgren, Mats 1986. Fossilt odlingslandskap i fornminnesregistret. Några användarsynpunkter.
Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift Nr 11: 164-174.
Widgren, Mats 1998. Kulturgeografernas bönder och arkeologernas guld – finns det någon väg till en
syntes? In: Larsson, Lars & Hårdh, Birgitta (eds.), Centrala Platser – Centrala Frågor. Samhäls­
strukturen under Järnåldern. En vänbok till Berta Stjernquist. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia. Series
in 8°, No. 28: 281-296.
Widgren, Mats 2005. Fimbulvintern – fanns den? In: Bunte, Carin, Berglund, Björn E. & Larsson, Lars (eds.),
Arkeologi och naturvetenskap. Gyllenstiernska Krapperupstiftelsens symposium nr 6 år 2003. Lund: 62-70.
Wigren, Sonja 1987. Sörmländsk bronsåldersbygd. En studie av tidiga centrumbildningar daterade med
termoluminescens. Theses and Papers in North-European Archaeology 16.
Wuolijoki, Helena 1972. Suomen rautakauden silmäkirveet. Helsingin yliopiston arkeologian laitos. Mo-
niste n:o 4.
Ylikangas, Heikki 2007. Suomen historian solmukohdat. Juva.
Ylimaunu, Timo 1999. Pohjanrannan metallikaudesta - etnisyysongelma. Muinaistutkija 2/1999: 2-11.
Zariņa, A. 1996. Indricas un Slobodas agrā dzelzs laikmeta apmetnes ar apidzīvotību arī viduslaikos.
Arheoloģija un etnogrāfija XVIII: 191-211.
Ziemlińska-Odojowa, Włodzimiera 1999. Niedanowo. Ein Gräberfeld der Przeworsk- und Wielbark-Kultur
in Nordmasovien. Monumenta Archaeologica Barbarica. Tomus VII. Kraków.
Zimmermann, W. Haio 1999. Why was cattle-stalling introduced in prehistory? The significance of
byre and stable and of outwintering. In: Fabech, Charlotte & Ringtved, Jytte (eds.), Settlement and
Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Jutland Archaeological So-
ciety. Aarhus University Press: 301-318.
Zvelebil, Marek 1981. From Forager to Farmer in the Boreal Zone. BAR International Series 115(i).
Åhlen, Marit, Tuovinen, Tapani & Myhrman, Hans 1997. ��������������������������������������������
Runstensfragmentet från Hitis – ett arkeolo-
giskt nyfynd. Skärgård 4/1997: 52-53.
Åhlen, Marit, Tuovinen, Tapani & Myhrman, Hans 1998. Ett runstensfragment från Hitis. Muinais­
tutkija 1/1998: 18-20.
Åkerlund, Agneta 1996. Human Responses to Shore Displacement. Living by the Sea in Eastern Middle Swe­
den during the Stone Age. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Arkeologiska undersökningar. Skrifter nr. 16.
Studier från UV Stockholm.
Äikäs, Tiina & Ikäheimo, Janne 2005. Hiilen murusia ja muutama palanut kivi. Muinaistutkija 4/2005: 2-14.
Äyräpää, Aarne 1942. Kampakeraamisen kulttuurin savikuviot. Suomen Museo 1941: 82-123.
Äyräpää, Aarne 1951. Kulturförhållandena i Finland före finnarnas invandring. Suomen Muinais­
muistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja LII: 1: 77-98.

434
Field reports according to municipality

Dragsfjärd

Asplund, Henrik 1985. Dragsfjärd, Kärra, Jordbro. Tarkastuskäynti kivikautiselle asuinpaikalle

20.05.1984.
Asplund, Henrik 1985. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Nöjis. Kompletterande provutgrävning av en
stenåldersboplats 01.06.1985.
Asplund, Henrik 1985. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Nöjis. Provutgrävning av en stenåldersboplats
19-20.05.1984.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Dragsfjärd, Ansvedja. Tarkastuskäynti kivikautiselle asuinpaikka-alueelle
08.11.1986.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Dragsfjärd, Hertsböle, Senatsberget. Selvitys syksyllä vuonna 1986 löytyneestä
kivikautisesta asuinpaikasta.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Dragsfjärd, Kärra, Jordbro. Tarkastuskäynti kivikautiselle asuinpaikalle
08.11.1986.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Knipängsbacken. Tarkastuskäynti kivikautiselle
asuin­paikalle 08.11.1986.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Nöjis. Kompletterande provutgrävning av en
stenåldersboplats 24-25.05.1986.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Söderby I. Selvitys syksyllä vuonna 1986 löy-
tyneestä kivikautisesta asuinpaikasta.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Söderby II. Selvitys syksyllä vuonna 1986 löy-
tyneestä kivikautisesta asuinpaikasta.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Selvitys syksyllä vuonna 1986 löytyneestä kivikautisesta asuinpaikasta.
Asplund, Henrik 1988. Dragsfjärd, Ansvedja. Selvitys kivikautisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä kesällä
vuonna 1987. Selvitys kahdesta kiviesineestä, jotka löytyivät ennestään tunnetulta Ansvedjan
kivikautiselta asuinpaikalta.
Asplund, Henrik 1988. Dragsfjärd, Hertsböle. Selvitys kahden kivikautisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä
vuoden 1987 lokakuussa.
Asplund, Henrik 1988. Dragsfjärd, Nordanå. Selvitys kolmen kivikautisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä
syys- ja lokakuussa vuonna 1987.
Asplund, Henrik 1988. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Nöjis. Kompletterande provutgrävning av en
stenåldersboplats 15-17.05.1987.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Dragsfjärd, Storfinhofva ja Lillfinhofva. Selvitys syksyllä vuonna 1988 teh­
dyistä kivikauden asuinpaikkahavainnoista.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Nöjis. Kompletterande provutgrävning av en
stenåldersboplats 28-29.05.1988.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, Sandbrinkarna. Selvitys kivikautisen asuinpaikka-alueen
löytymisestä vuoden 1988 syyskuussa.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Selvitys uusista havainnoista Ansvedjan kivikautisella asuinpaikka-alueella
vuonna 1988.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Selvitys uusista havainnoista Ansvedjan kivikautisella asuinpaikka-alueella
vuonna 1988.
Asplund, Henrik 1990. Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, Hammarsboda. Selitys kivi- ja varhaismetallikautisista
asuin­paikkalöydöistä vuosilta 1989-1990.

435
Asplund, Henrik 1991. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Nöjis. Avslutande provutgrävning av en stenålders-
boplats 20.-21.05.1989.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Dragsfjärd (tid. Hitis), Kyrksundet. NAU-läger 27.7.-7.8.1992. Fältrapport
över delområde x 827-830 / y 4800-4801.50.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, 28:17. Selvitys kivikautisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä
keväällä vuonna 1991.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Rautakautisen ja keskiaikaisen
muinaisjäännösalueen tutkimukset 2.-20.8.1993.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Rosala. Koekaivaus tienparannusalueella 18.-
20.8.1993.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Dragsfjärd, Hammarsboda 2. Provutgrävning av en senneolitisk boplats 29.-
30.5. och 11.-12.9.1993.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Dragsfjärd, Nordanå (D). Selvitys kivikautisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä
keväällä vuonna 1993.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Dragsfjärd, Storfinhofva, Oxmossen. Selvitys kivikautisen asuinpaikan löyty-
misestä keväällä vuonna 1989.
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Dragsfjärd, Krogarudden 1995. Museovirasto, Muinaisjäännösten hoito.
Seurantaraportti.
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Söderby I. Provutgrävning av en stenåldersboplats
16.-17.9.1995.
Asplund, Henrik & Salomonsson, Henrik 1985. Dragsfjärd, Ölmos-Purunpää, Jungfrusund. Rapport
angående fornfynd gjorda på Krogarudden vid Jungfrusund i Dragsfjärd, samt kort redogörelse
för lokalisering och uppmålning av hällristningar på samma plats.
Bergström, Matti 1985. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik (Söderby) - kiviröykkiön osan kaivaus.
Cleve, Nils 1943. Redogörelse för en fornminnesrekognosering i Dragsfjärd sommaren 1943 utförd
med understöd av Nordenskiöld-samfundet i Finland.
Cleve, Nils 1946. Redogörelse för arkeologiska undersökningar på Jordbromalmen i Dragsfjärd,
utförda med understöd av Nordenskiöld-samfundet i Finland.
Edgren, Helena 1985. Dragsfjärd. Arkeologisk inventering 1985. Konstsamfundets Insula Nova -område.
Fagerström, Levi & Roth, Harto 1992. Hiittisten Kirkkosalmi. Koekuopitus 1991.
Fagerstöm, Levi & Roth, Harto 1992. Dragsfjärdin saariston inventointi 1991.
Heikkinen, Titta & Näränen, Jari 1992. Hiittisten saariston inventointi 1992.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1993. Dragsfjärd, Kyrksundet. Rautakauden lopulle ajoittuvan löytöpaikan
kaivaus 1992.
Jäkärä, Tiina 1994. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Kappelialueen hautausten tutkimukset -
osaraportti 1994.
Jäkärä, Tiina 1995. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Tutkimukset kappelialueella - osaraportti 1995.
Jäkärä, Tiina 1996. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Tutkimukset kappelialueella - osaraportti 1996.
Jäkärä, Tiina 1997. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Rautakautisen ja keskiaikaisen muinais-
jäännösalueen tutkimukset 28.7.-8.8.1997.
Kankkunen, Päivi 1992. Dragsfjärd, Nordanå, Bötesberget. Mesoliittisen asuinpaikan koekaivaus.
Kivikoski, Ella 1936. Kertomus kaivauksesta Dragsfjärdin pit. Söderbyn kl. maalla heinäkuun 20
päivänä 1935.
Kostet, Juhani & Itkonen, Pertti & Mikkonen-Hirvonen, Satu 1989. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik, Söder-
by 1988. Kertomus kiviröykkiön kaivauksesta 6.-10.10.1988.
Lempiäinen, Terttu 1993. Dragsfjärd/Hiittinen, Kyrksundet, arkeologiset kaivaukset 1993. Makro­
fossiilitutkimukset.

436
Lempiäinen, Terttu 1994. Hiittinen, Kyrksundet; makrofossiilitutkimus 1994.
Lempiäinen, Terttu 1995. Hiittinen, Kyrksundet; makrofossiilitutkimus 1995.
Mäntylä, Sari 1995. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Rautakautisen ja keskiaikaisen muinais-
jäännösalueen tutkimukset 17.7.-4.8.1995.
Mäntylä, Sari 1995. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Rautakautisen ja keskiaikaisen muinais-
jäännösalueen tutkimukset 18.7.-5.8.1994.
Mäntylä, Sari 1996. Dragsfjärd (ent. Hiittinen), Kyrksundet. Rautakautisen ja keskiaikaisen muinais-
jäännösalueen tutkimukset 1.7.-26.7.1996.
Nordman, C.O. 1938. Grävningar på kyrkogården vid Kyrksundet i Hitis i juli 1938.
Nordman, C.O. 1939. Utgrävning av kyrkogården på Kyrkön invid Kyrksundet i Hitis, juni - juli 1939.
Näränen, Jari 1996. Nauvon ja Dragsfjärdin alueilla sijaitsevien hylkyjen ja läheisten maa-alueiden
kiin­teiden rakenteiden välisistä suhteista. Kenttätyöraportti 8.-11.5.1995.
Sipilä, Marja 1996. Dragsfjärd, Hertsböle, Senatsberget. Kivikautisen asuinpaikan koekaivaus 25.-
26.5.1996.
Sipilä, Marja 1996. Dragsfjärd, Hertsböle, Senatsberget. Kivikautisen asuinpaikan koekaivaus 21.-
22.9.1996.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1985. Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, Hälsingholmen. Ryssänuuniryhmän tarkastus 30.5.1985.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1985. Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, Kolaskär. Ryssänuunin tarkastus 7.6.1985.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1988. Dragsfjärd, Krogarudden-Jungfrusund. Maastotarkastus 22.-23.06.1987 ja
11.08.1987.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1991. Dragsfjärd, Hammarsboda. Maastokäynti 19.12.1990.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1991. Dragsfjärd, Ölmos, Östergård 2. Arkeologisk undersökning av ett gravröse
den 6.-9.9.1990.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1992. Dragsfjärd, Holma, Stora Ängeskär. Labyrintin tarkastus 13.6.1989.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1993. Dragsfjärd, Söderlångvik. Kahden kivirakenteen tarkastus 7.8.1992.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1993. Dragsfjärd. Selvennyksiä ja täydennyksiä Levi Fagerströmin ja Harto Rothin
raporttiin Hiittisten Kirkkosalmi, Koekuopitus 1991.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1993. Dragsfjärdin Hammarsboda 3:n tutkimukset 1991.

Halikko

Appelgren, Hjalmar 1896. Redogörelse för de af undertecknad under September månad 1896 utförda
antiqvariska arbetena.
Asplund, Henrik 2002. Halikko, Hirvikallio, Rikala Linnamäki. Linnavuoren fosforikartoitus 10.8. ja
15.8.2001.
Asplund, Henrik 2007. Halikko, Hirvikallio, Rikala Linnamäki. Koekaivaus 30.10.2002.
Brusila, Heljä 2002. Raportti arkeologisesta seurannasta, jonka Turun maakuntamuseon tutkija Heljä
Brusila suoritti 5.11.2002 vesijohtokaivantotyömaalla Halikon Puotilan tilalla, rautakautisella
löytöalueella.
Brusila, Heljä 2006. Halikko, Paimion yhteismetsä. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1966. Halikon Kultolan Katunpään rautakautisen löytöpaikan tarkastus
24.9.1963.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1991. Halikon Märyn Munismäen kuppikallion tarkastus 1983.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1998. Halikon Märyn Pihkon kuppikiven tarkastus kesäkuussa 1983.
Katiskoski, Kaarlo 1983. Halikko Pappila Kirkonmäki.

437
Koskimies, Anna Kerttu 1955. Angelniemen kiinteät muinaisjäännökset.
Koskimies, Anna Kerttu 1955. Halikon kiinteät muinaisjäännökset.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1952. Halikon pitäjän Toijalanmäen huvila-alueella, Väinö Salosen tontilla esineen
E.O. 12691 löytöpaikalla suoritettu kaivaus 11/6 - 21/6 1951.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1952. Uhrikivi Halikon pitäjän Ketolan kylän Meisalan ent. kruununvirkatalon maalla.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1955. Intendentti Jorma Leppäahon tutkimukset Halikon pitäjän Rikalanmäellä
pien­viljelijä August Tuomisen ent. tontilla olevassa ruumiskalmistossa.
Mikkola, Esa 1994. Halikko Märy Munismäki. Rautakautisen kalmiston / asuinpaikan ? tarkastus.
Mikkola, Esa 1995. Halikon Märyn rautakautisten kohteiden kaivaukset vuonna 1994. Riihikankare
Krapuoja ja Myllyoja.
Mikkola, Esa 1996. Halikko Märy Munismäki. Rautakautisen asuinpaikan koekuopitus.
Mikkola, Esa 1998. Halikon läntisen ohikulkutien sekä MT 2351 ja MT 2355 varteen rakennettavan
kevyen liikenteen väylän arkeologinen inventointi 1.-6.10.1998.
Mikkola, Esa 1999. Halikon kunnan kiinteiden muinaisjäännösten inventointi 2.-30.9.1998.
Mikkola, Esa 2000. Halikko Puotila Wuorenrinta. Rautakautisen löytöpaikan koekaivaus 19.7.-
13.8.1999.
Mäntylä, Sari 2004. Raportti saviastian palojen (KM 34664) löytymisestä Halikon Märyn Pihkosta
10.4.2004.
Poutiainen, Hannu 1990. Perniö – Piikkiö -ratalinjan arkeologinen inventointi toukokuussa 1989.
Raike, Eeva 2004. Halikon Kirkkomäen koekaivaukset ja kaivaukset 16.6.-27.6.2003 & 8.9.-19.9.2003.
Riikonen, Jaana 1988. Halikko, Angelniemi. Kiviröykkiöiden tarkastus 13.6.1988.
Riikonen, Jaana 1990. Kertomus Halikon Rikalassa Pauli Heinon tontilla 20.-28.8.1990 tehdystä
koekaivauksesta.
Riikonen, Jaana 2001. Parkkipaikaksi tasoitetun ns. Kaijankallion koekuopitus Halikon Rikalan a­lu­eel­
la 15. ja 16.11.1999.
Saloranta, Elina 1989. Halikko Rikala Kihinen ja Halikko Joensuu.
Saloranta, Elina 1991. Halikko Rikala.
Saloranta, Elina 1991. Halikko Rikala Kihinen.
Saloranta, Elina 1991. Halikko Joensuu.
Sarvas, Anja 1968. Halikko, Kuttila, Vuorela. Kivikautisen tasataltan KM 17607 löytöpaikan tarkastus.
Sarvas, Anja 1968. Halikko, Kytö, Lisälehtola. Kivikautisen karhunpääkirveen KM 17610 löytöpaikan
tarkastus heinäkuussa 1968.
Sarvas, Anja 1968. Halikko, Melkola, Melkola. Kivikautinen asuinpaikka.
Sarvas, Anja 1968. Halikko, Melkola, Melkola. Kourutaltan KM 17611 löytöpaikan tarkastus.
Sarvas, Anja 1968. Halikko, Pitkäoja, Koivusilta. Liuskekeihäänkärjen KM 17608 ja liuskekeihään­
kärjen katkelman KM 17608 löytöpaikan tarkastus.
Sarvas, Anja 1968. Halikon Muntolan Isoriihenmäen viikinkiaikaisen polttokenttäkalmiston kaivaus-
kertomus.
Sarvas, Anja 1968. Halikon Mustamäen rautakautisen löytöpaikan tarkastus ja koekaivaus heinä­
kuussa 1968.
Sarvas, Anja 1969. Halikon Muntolan Isoriihenmäen viikinkiaikaisen polttokenttäkalmiston kai-
vauskertomus.
Seppänen, Kimmo 1975. Halikko, Rikala. Kertomus maanäytteiden otosta fosfaattianalyysiä varten
ajalla 8.-19.9.1975.
Seppänen, Kimmo 1976. Halikon Rikalanmäen kaivauskertomus 1.-17.6.1976.

438
Seppänen, Kimmo 1977. Halikko, Mustamäki, Suutarin tontti. Tarkastuskertomus löydetystä noki-
maakerroksesta 22.8.1976.
Seppänen, Kimmo 1978. Halikon Rikalanmäen kaivauskertomus 13.6.-8.7.1977.
Seppänen, Kimmo 1978. Halikon Rikalanmäen kaivauskertomus 3.7.-29.8.1978.
Strandberg, Nina 2000. Halikko, läntisen ohikulkutien ja mt 2355 koekaivauskohteet 1999. Halikko
Lempolanmäki S, Halikko Kihistenmäki SW, Halikko Mörlingin pelto, Halikko Kannikon ma-
kasiini, Halikko Mattila, Halikko Torkkelin pelto. Koekaivauksia inventoiduissa kohteissa.
Vanhatalo, Simo 2006. Halikko Wuorenrinta, rautakautisen löytöpaikan ympäristön koekaivaus.
Voionmaa, Jouko 1955. Halikko, Rikala, Linnamäki.

Kemiö

Asplund, Henrik 1985. Kemiö, Östermark. Ilmoitus 11.05.1985 löydetystä kivikautisesta asuinpaikasta.
Asplund, Henrik 1985. Kimito, Östermark. Provutgrävning av en stenåldersboplats 14.09.1985.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Kemiö, Östermark. Uusia irtolöytöjä Kiukaisten kulttuurin asuinpaikalta.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Kemiö, Östermark, Österbacka. Selvitys mahdollisesti esihistoriallisen lieden
löytymisestä syksyllä vuonna 1988.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Selvitys keväällä vuonna 1988 tehdystä kivikauden asuinpaikkahavainnosta.
Asplund, Henrik 1990. Kemiö, Engelsby, Brudbergen. ������������������������������������������������
Selvitys mahdollisista kivikautisista asuinpaik-
kalöydöistä.
Asplund, Henrik 1991. Kemiö, Löfböle, Vestergård. Selvitys mahdollisen esihistoriallisen asuinpai-
kan löytymisestä syksyllä v. 1989.
Asplund, Henrik 1991. Kemiö, Pedersjö, Lillgård. ���������������������������������������������������
Tarkastuskäynti mahdollisella kivikautisella asuin-
paikalla 15.10.1989.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Kemiö, Branten. �����������������������������������������������������������
Raportti myöhäisneoliittisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä vuon-
na 1989 sekä 25.5.1991 suoritetusta seulontatyöstä.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Kemiö, Makila. Käynti varhaismetallikautisella asuinpaikka-alueella
26.7.1992.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Kimito, Makila, Östergård. Preliminära undersökningar av en förromersk bo-
plats 1989-90.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Kemiö, Bogsböle. Selvitys kivikautisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä keväällä
vuonna 1993.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Kemiö, Hulta. Selvitys esihistoriallisista löydöistä keväältä vuonna 1993.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Kemiö, Rugnola ja Kalkila. Raportti inventointiluontoisista tutkimuksista
vuosina 1986-88.
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Kemiö, Berghäll. Museovirasto. Muinaisjäännösten hoito. Seurantaraportti.
Asplund, Henrik 1998. Kemiö, Makila. Koetutkimus historiallisen ajan kylässä 04.06.1998.
Asplund, Henrik & Saarinen, Riikka 1998. Kemiö, Makila, Majberget. Varhaismetallikautisen röyk-
kiön kaivaus 02.-06.06., 11.09. ja 14.11.1997.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1992. Kemiö, Makila, Östergård. Varhaismetallikautisen löytöpaikan tarkastus
5.11.1991.

439
Kuusjoki

Laakso, Ville 1997. Kuusjoki. Muinaisjäännösinventointi 1997.

Sarvas, Anja 1974. Kuusjoen kunnan kiinteät muinaisjäännökset. Inventointi 1972.

Muurla

Hackman, Alfred 1916. Muurla socken. Fyndställena på Äijälä eller Heinäkari. H.M. 2589:1-4; 6762:3,4;
7014.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1962. Muurlan pitäjän esihistoriallisten muinaisjäännösten tarkastus
17.10.1961.
Huurre, Matti 1965. Muurlan inventointikertomus 1963.
Laukkanen, Esa 2003. Muurlan kiinteät muinaisjäännökset ja maalöydöt. Kertomus v. 2002 tehdystä
arkeologisesta inventoinnista.
Schvindt, Theodor 1888. Till arkeologiska kommissionen! Den 12. September 1888 No: 470.
Söyrinki-Harmo, Leena 1977. Kertomus tarkastusmatkasta kivikautiselle asuinpaikalle 28.06.1976.

Nauvo

Asplund, Henrik 1991. Nauvo, Finby, Hvits. Jatulintarhan tarkastus 27.04.1991.

Asplund, Henrik 1994. Nauvo, Simonby. Selvitys myöhäisneoliittisen asuinpaikan löytymisestä
4.9.1993.
Mickelson, Georg 1955. Inventarieförteckning över de fasta fornlämningarna i Nagu socken.
Rajala, Ulla 1992. Nauvon ja Paraisten välisen kiinteän yhteyden yleissuunitelman linjausvaihtoehto-
jen arkeologinen inventointi 3.-18.6.1992.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1983. Nauvo, Innamo, Gaudis. Maanalaisia kivirakenteita koskeva ilmoitus
17.6.1983.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1985. Nauvo, Innamo, Suranpäudden. Kalliokirjoitusten tarkastus 28.8.1985.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1985. Nauvo, Innamo, Tammort. Kalliokirjoituksen tarkastus 28.8.1985.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1988. Nauvo, Innamo, Lilla Kuusis. Kalliomerkkiryhmien tarkastus 24.08.1986 ja
29.06.1987.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1988. Nauvo, Mielis, Västra Petisholmen. Ryssänuuniryhmän tarkastus 28.06.1987.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1988. Nauvo, Nötö, Klockarstenen. Soivan kiven maastotarkastus 26.05.1987 ja
08.07.1987.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1988. Nauvo, Puotuis, Vessor. Kiviraunio- tai kummeliryhmän tarkastus
27.06.1987.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1989. Nauvo, Halsholm. Labyrintin tarkastus 5.5.1988.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1989. Nauvo, Innamo, Vähä-Kuusinen (Lilla Kuusis). Metallikautisen hautaraunion
tutkimus 10.7.-19.7.1988.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1989. Nauvo, Nötö, Sundbergen 1988. Kaivausraportti.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1992. Nauvo 533, Bryggars. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1992. Nauvo 533, Bårnholm. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus 22.9.1989.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1993. Nauvon Ängesnäs bergenin tutkimukset 1993.

440
Paimio

Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1984. Paimio, Spurila. Tarkastuskäynti 24.10.1984.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1984. Paimio, Spurila. Vanhemman rautakauden asuinpaikka­
kerrostuman kaivaus 04-12.08.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1985. Paimio, Kruusila. Turun Maakuntamuseossa säilytettävän vii­
kin­kiaikaisen kaularenkaan (TKHM 13181) löytöpaikalle suoritettu tarkastuskäynti 23.05.1985.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1985. Paimio, Spurila, (asuinpaikka G). Tarkastuskäynti nuorem-
man rautakauden asuinpaikalle 23.05.1985.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1985. Paimio, Spurila, (kalmisto C). Nuoremman rautakau­den kal­
mis­ton koekaivaus 08.07-31.07.1985.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1985. Paimio, Spurila, (löytöpaikka h). Rautakautisen muinais­
jäännöksen koetutkimus 22.07.-31.07.1985.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1985. Paimio, Spurila. Roomalaisaikaisen kalmiston kaivaus sekä
sen ympäristön koetutkimukset 04.06-31.07.1984.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1986. Paimio, Spurila, (kalmisto H). Roomalaisaikaisen hautaraken-
nelman koekaivaus 01.07-31.07.1985.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1986. Paimio, Spurila, kalmisto A. Roomalaisaikaisen kalmiston
jatkotutkimus 03.06.-31.07.1985.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka & Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 1983. Eräiden Spurilan rautakautiseen
muinaisjäännöskompleksiin kuuluvien kohteiden tarkastus 12.11.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka & Vuorinen, Juha-Matti 1983. Paimio, Spurila. Rautakautisek­si kal­
mistoksi epäillyn kohteen tarkastus 22.10.1983.
Bilund, Antti 1997. Paimio, Askala, Nummenalho. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Bilund, Antti 1997. Paimio, Munkkila, Laukonmäki. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Bilund, Antti 1997. Paimio, Vuohimäki, Vuohimäki. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1990. Paimio, Askala, Toispuolojannummi. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1992. Paimio, Maljamäki, Litto. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1993. Paimio, Leikola. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Europaeus, Aarne 1928. Alholan kivikautinen asuinpaikka Paimion pitäjän Oinilan kylässä.
Europaeus, Aarne 1928. Paimion Toispuolojannummen kivikautinen asuinpaikka. Alustava tutkimus
paikalla v. 1928.
Europaeus, Aarne 1928. Tietoja uhrikuopista Paimiossa.
Fischer, Riitta & Luoto, Jukka 1982. Paimio, Sievola 1982. 15.6.-28.7.1982.
Fischer, Riitta & Luoto, Jukka 1983. Paimio, Spurila 1982. Rautakautinen polttokenttäkalmisto 15.7.-
15.8.1982.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1961. Paimio, Askala, Nummentalo. Hautaraunion tarkastus 19.4.1961.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1961. Paimion esihistoriallisten muinaisjäännösten tarkastuksia Paimion
Oinilan kylässä 18.-19.4.1961.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1961. Paimion Penimäen Hiidenalan hiidenkiukaan tarkistus 19.4.1961.
Kivikoski, Ella 1933. Paimio, Rukkijoki, Kehinoja. Tutkimus 24-26 p:nä heinäk. 1933.
Kivikoski, Ella 1934. Kertomus E. Kivikosken kaivauksista Paimion pitäjän Askalan kylän Alitalon ja
Keskitalon mailla kesällä 1934.
Kivikoski, Ella 1934. Paimio, Herrankartano. Kaivaus v. 1934.
Kivikoski, Ella 1934. Tarkastusmatka Paimion pitäjän Maljamäen kylään pronssikirveen (N:o 9830)
löytöpaikalle.

441
Kivikoski, Ella 1936. Kaivaus Paimion pitäjän Isokuusvuoren tilan Peltomäellä heinäkuun 22-23 p:nä
1935.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1933. Kertomus Historiallisen osaston intendentin maisteri I. Kronqvistin Paimion
retkikunnan tekemistä esihistoriallisista löydöistä ja havainnoista.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1952. Paimion Askalan Alitalon Huhdan santakuoppa. Tyypillisen kampakera­
miikan löytöpaikka (9605.13).
Leppäaho, Jorma 1957. Intendentti Jorma Leppäahon suorittama kaivaus Paimion pitäjän Oinilan
kylän Lautelan kartanon maalla 17.6.-22.6.1954.
Lindroos, Allan 1928. Förteckning och beskrivning över fornlämningarna i Pemar socken.
Luoto, Jukka 1979. Kertomus kaivauksista Paimion Nakolinnalla ja sen ympäristössä 18.6-18.8.1979.
Luoto, Jukka 1981. Kertomus kaivauksista Paimion Katajamäellä syyskuussa 1980.
Luoto, Jukka 1981. Paimio, Askala, Toispuolojannummi. Kaivauskertomus 1981.
Luoto, Jukka 1981. Paimio, Spurila, Spurilanmäki 1980. Koekaivaus.
Luoto, Jukka 1982. Paimio, Sievola. Kaivauskertomus 1980-81.
Luoto, Jukka 1984. Paimio, Oinila. Uhrikivilöytö syksyllä 1983.
Oksala, Hilkka 1990. Paimio, Huso 1990. Kertomus tarkastuksista Paimion Husossa 12.9.1990.
Palo, Jyrki 1996. Paimion Askala ja Oinila, arkeologinen kivikauden inventointi 2.5.-26.5.1995.
Poutiainen, Hannu 1988. Turku - Paimio -moottoritielinjan inventointi 11.5.-31.5.1987.
Pälsi, Sakari 1933. Paimio, Askala, Rakisaaren nummen kaivaus 1932.
Pärssinen, Martti 1984. Kertomus kaivauksesta, joka suoritettiin Paimiossa, Spurilan kartanon Lopen
kylämäellä 1.6.-2.8.1983.
Raike, Eeva 2005. Paimion arkeologinen inventointi 25.4.-10.6.2005.
Ruonavaara, Leena 1974. Paimio, Askala, Toispuolojannummi. Kivikautisen asuinpaikan koekaivaus
24.-28.9.1973.
Schvindt, Theodor 1887. Paimio, Vista, Koskenniittu. Till Arkeologiska kommissionen.
Tallgren, A. M. 1926. Paimio.

Parainen

Asplund, Henrik 1990. Provutgrävning av en medeltida kapellplats 05-09.06.1989.

Asplund, Henrik 1991. Kompletterande provutgrävning av en medeltida kapellplats 11.-15.6.1990.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Parainen, Jermo. Selvitys rautakautisen kirveen löytymisestä.
Asplund, Henrik 1994. Avslutande provutgrävning av en medeltida kapellplats 13.6.1992.
Asplund, Henrik 2007. Pargas, Koupo, Rösbacken. Arkeologisk undersökning av en lokal från sen-
neolitikum / bronsålder 15.5. och 19.-20.5.2007.
Brusila, Heljä 1989. Parainen, Tojoinen, Vivalängsberg. Esihistoriallisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1993. Parainen, Jermo, Roparudden. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Kehusmaa, Anu 1999. Parainen, Degerby, Fagervik. Kivikautisen asuin­pai­kan kai­vaus 22.-23.­­05.­1999.
Lehtonen, Kaisa 2003. Parainen, Kapellstrand, Nunnavuori. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Mickelson, Georg 1954. Inventarieförteckning över de fasta fornlämningarna i Pargas socken.
Nyberg, Ragnar 1984. Fasta fornlämningar i Pargas.
Raike, Eeva 1999. Parainen, Degerby, Fagervik. ��������������������������������������������������
Kivikautisen asuinpaikan kaivaus. Pargas-Nagu Med-
borgarinstitut, lokakuu 1996, toukokuu 1997, kahden viikonlopun arkeologinen kaivaus.

442
Rajala, Ulla 1992. Nauvon ja Paraisten välisen kiinteän yhteyden yleissuunnitelman linjausvaihtoeh-
tojen arkeologinen inventointi 3.-18.6.1992.
Sjöstrand, Peter 1980. Parainen, Vallis, Södergård. Löytökertomus.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1985. Rymättylä, Ojainen, Alistalo. Kivikautisen asuinpaikan tarkastus 15.8.1985.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1989. Parainen, Sydmo malmarna. Mahd. kivikautisen asuinpaikan tarkastus
21.8.1989.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1995. Paraisten Lenholmin arkeologinen inventointi.

Perniö

Ailio, Julius 1900. Tyynelän rautakautinen polttokalmisto Perniön Ylikylässä Arpalahden maalla.
Ailio, Julius 1912. Hautaraunion tutkimus Vaarnummella Perniössä, Kivelän talon maalla.
Appelgren, Hjalmar 1896. Bjerno. Å Parskylä gårdsplan i Bjerno socken ...
Appelgren, Hjalmar 1896. Redogörelse för de af undertecknad under September månad 1896 utförda
antiqvariska arbetena.
Appelgren, Hjalmar 1897. Perniö. Paarskylän kartanon …
Appelgren, Hjalmar 1897. Perniö. Yliskylän kappelin kirkkomaan …
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Perniö, Teijo. Raportti alueella havaituista kiviuuneista.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Perniö, Viipuri, Kallela. Sudenkuopan tarkastus 19.5.1992.
Asplund, Henrik 1992. Perniö, Viipuri, Ylitalo, Aateliskankare. Tarkastuskäynti 19.5.1992.
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Perniö, Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 22-25.8.1994. Museovirasto, Muinaisjäännösten
hoito. Seurantaraportti.
Bilund, Antti 1994. Perniö, Suksenböle. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1990. Raportti tarkastuskäynnistä, joka tehtiin 10.10.1990 Perniön Skoilan kylään, opet-
taja Hans Myhrmanin löytämälle kivikautiselle asuinpaikalle.
Cleve, Nils 1930. Järnåldersgravfältet å Tyynelä i Bjerno (Perniö).
Cleve, Nils 1930. Perniö, Kokkila, Hakala.
Europaeus, Aarne 1924. Hautaraunioita Perniön Knaapilan talon Varemäellä ja lähistöllä.
Hackman, Alfred 1916. Bjerno socken. Uppgifter om fyndstället för bronsdolken H.M. 6795:5.
Keskitalo, Oiva 1966. Perniö, Paarskylä. Myöhäisrautakautisen polttokenttäkalmiston pikakaivaus
18-19.10.1966.
Kivikoski, Ella 1937. Perniö, Knaapila, Varemäki. Röykkiö N:o d:n kaivaus 1937.
Lähdesmäki, Ulla & Ruotsalainen, Teija 1982. Kertomus Perniön Lemun kylän Lehmihaassa 1982 suo­
ritetuista kaivauksista.
Lähdesmäki, Ulla & Salo, Unto 1982. Kertomus Perniön Lemun kylän Lehmihaassa 1981 suoritetuis-
ta kaivauksista.
Lähdesmäki, Ulla 1980. Kertomus Perniön Lemun kylän Lehmihaassa 1979 suoritetuista rauniokai­
vauksista.
Lähdesmäki, Ulla 1980. Kertomus Perniön Lemun kylän Lehmihaassa 1980 suoritetuista kaivauksista.
Meinander, C. F. 1961. Perniö, Mutainen. Kivikautisen asuinpaikan tarkastus.
Poutiainen, Hannu 1989. Perniö - Piikkiö -ratalinjan inventointi 1989.
Poutiainen, Hannu 1989. Perniö. Radanoikaisulinjan inventointi 1988.
Pälsi, Sakari 1930. Pronssikeihäs 9138, Perniö, Kokkilan Hakala.
Raike, Eeva 1998. Perniön inventointi 1997.

443
Salmo, Helmer 1927. Perniön esihistoriallisten löytöjen ja kiinteiden muinaisjäännösten luetteloiminen.
Salmo, Helmer 1929. Kaivauskertomus.
Salmo, Helmer 1940. Kertomus polttokenttäkalmiston tutkimisesta Perniön pitäjän Paarskylän kar-
tanon puutarhassa 6-16/VIII 1940.
Salmo, Helmer 1945. Perniön pitäjän Osalan talon roomalaisaikainen kalmisto.
Salmo, Helmer 1955. Perniön pitäjän kiinteiden muinaisjäännösten tarkastus 20-21.9.1955.
Salmo, Helmer 1958. Tarkastusmatka Perniön Paarskylään konstaapeli Uuno Laineen omistamalle
palstalle 14.11.1958.
Salmo, Helmer 1959. Polttokenttäkalmiston tutkimus Perniön pitäjän Paarskylän Pääris´issä, kons­
taapeli Uuno Laineen tontilla kesäk. 3-10. p:nä 1959.
Salmo, Helmer 1963. Tarkastusmatka Perniön Aimontapon kylän Kuusimäen tilalle 28.5.1963.
Salmo, Helmer 1963. Tarkastusmatka Perniön Aimontapon kylän Salminiemen (ent. Ilolan) talon
maalle 28.5.1963.
Salmo, Helmer 1963. Tarkastusmatka Perniön Korvenkylän Ahjon talon maalle 28.5.1963.
Salmo, Helmer 1964. Tarkastusmatka Perniön Asteljoen kylään 11.6.1964.
Salonen, Helmer 1929. Perniö, Knaapila. Kaivauskertomus.
Sirelius, U. T. 1902. Hautareukki Kivelän yksityistilalla Perniön pitäjässä.
Tallgren, A. M. 1925. Esihist. Os. 16.9.1925.
Voionmaa, Jouko & Leppäaho, Jorma 1938. Rautakautinen polttokalmisto Perniön Paarskylän puu-
tarhassa, tutkineet Muinaistieteellisen toimikunnan määräyksestä J. Leppäaho ja J. Voionmaa
huhtikuussa 1938.
Voionmaa, Jouko 1938. Uhrikuppeja kalliossa Perniön pitäjän Paarskylän kartanon maalla, Anttilan
palstatilan lähellä; tutkinut J. Voionmaa huhtikuussa 1938.

Pertteli

Appelgren-Kivalo, Hjalmar 1909. Pertteli, Wihmoilan kylä, Sipilän talo.

Huurre, Matti 1965. Perttelin kiinteät muinaisjäännökset.
Pukkila, Jouko 2002. Pertteli. Arkeologinen perusinventointi 2002.
Salmo, Helmer 1961. H. Salmon kertomus tarkastusmatkasta rannerenkaan n:o 15229 löytöpaikalle
Perttelin pitäjän Kaivolan kylään.

Piikkiö

Asplund, Henrik 1987. Piikkiö, Isohepojoki, Lausmäki. Tarkastuskäynti kivikautiselle asuinpaikalle

18.09.1986.
Asplund, Henrik 1987. Piikkiö, Moisio, Moision Alitalo. Tarkastuskäynti esiroomalaisen ajan asuin-
paikalle 23.09.1986.
Asplund, Henrik 1988. Piikkiö, Bussila. Tarkastuskäynnit 05.06. ja 08.06.1987.
Asplund, Henrik 1991. Piikkiö, Tammisilta, Kerätie 5. Mahdollisen kiviesineen löytöpaikan tarkastus
28.03.1991.
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Piikkiö, Hadvala. Museovirasto. Muinaisjäännösten hoito. Seurantaraportti.
Asplund, Henrik & Jukka Luoto 1993. Piikkiö, Huttalan linnavuori. Koekaivaus 19.07.-28.07.1983.

444
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1983. Piikkiö, Hadvala, Mattilanmaa. Tienlevennystyön takia suo­
ritettu tarkastuskäynti 02.11.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1983. Piikkiö, Huttala, Huttalanmäki. Inventointi ja koekaivaus
04.07.-06.07. ja 28.07.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1983. Piikkiö, Moisio, Kalmuskankare. Vesijohdon vetämisen takia
suoritettu tarkastus 22.07.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1983. Piikkiö, Moisio. Esihistorialliseksi haudaksi epäillyn raunion
tarkastus 21.07.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1983. Piikkiö, Viukkala, Leskelä ja Kurkkala. Inventointi ja koe­
kaivaus 01.08.-02.08.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1983. Piikkiö, Hadvala. Inventointi ja koekaivaus 07.07.-20.07.1983.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1984. Piikkiö, Bussila. Tutkimussuunnitelma sekä kertomus
24.11.1984 suoritetusta tarkastuskäynnistä.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1984. Piikkiö, Isohepojoki, Lausmäki. Kivikautisen asuinpaikan tar-
kastus 25.10.1984.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1984. Piikkiö, Makarla, Kylänpää. Kivikautisen asuinpaikan tarkas-
tus 27.08.1984.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1984. Piikkiö, Katari, Yli-Katari. Hajoitetuksi hautaraunioksi epäil-
lyn kohteen tarkastus 27.08.1984.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1984. Piikkiö, Moisio, Moision Alistalo. Esihistorialliseksi epäillyn
tulisijan tarkastus 27.08.1984.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1985. Piikkiö, Huttala, Huttalanmäki. Rautakautisen asuinpaikan
kaivaus 05.08.-04.09.1985.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1985. Piikkiö, Huttala, Huttalanmäki. Ristiretkiaikaisen rakennuk-
senpohjan kaivaus sekä sen ympäristön koetutkimukset 06.08.-14.09.1984.
Asplund, Henrik & Luoto, Jukka 1988. Piikkiö, Moisio, Moision Alitalo. Esiroomalaisen asuinpaikan
koekaivaus 15.07.1987.
Brusila, Heljä 1994. Piikkiön kuppikivet. Kuppikivien tarkastus 1993.
Brusila, Heljä 1995. Piikkiön kiinteät muinaisjäännökset. Inventointi 1995.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1963. Piikkiön Huttalan linnavuoren tarkastus 12.5, 16.5 ja 6.9 1962.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1963. Piikkiön Moision hautaraunion tarkastus 16.5, 6.9.1962.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1963. Piikkiön Teppalan kylän Myrskylinnan rautakautisen polttokalmiston
tarkastus 6-7.9. 1962.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1964. Piikkiön Teppalan Myrskylinnan rautakautisen kalmiston kaivaus 14.8.
ja 30.8. ja 2-3.9. 1963
Kivikoski, Ella 1937. Kertomus kaivauksesta Piikkiön pitäjän Rungon kl. Koskenhaan rautakauden
kalmistossa 31.5.-4.6. ja 6-14.7. 1937.
Kivikoski, Ella 1937. Kertomus koekaivauksesta rehtori Lembergin huvilapalstalla Piikkiössä mar-
raskuun 17 päivänä 1937.
Kivikoski, Ella 1937. Ristkankareenmäki Rungon pysäkin luona Piikkiössä.
Kivikoski, Ella 1939. Kertomus kaivauksesta Piikkiön Rungon Koskenhaan kalmistossa 28/6 - 1/7 1938.
Kivikoski, Ella 1941. Kertomus kaivauksesta Piikkiön Rungon Tiitusmäen kalmistossa kesäkuun 9-13
p:nä 1941.
Koskimies, Anna Kerttu & Haapanen, Virve 1954. Kertomus ylioppilaiden Anna Kerttu Koskimiehen
ja Virve Ruudun suorittamasta Piikkiön pitäjän kiinteiden muinaisjäännösten luetteloinnista
kesäkuussa 1954.

445
Lehtosalo, Pirkko-Liisa 1968. Kertomus kaivauksesta, jonka Pirkko-Liisa Lehtosalo suoritti heinä­
kuussa 1967 Piikkiön pitäjän Teppalan kylässä Myrskylinna -nimisellä mäellä.
Lehtosalo-Hilander, Pirkko-Liisa 1969. Kertomus kaivauksesta, jonka Pirkko-Liisa Lehtosalo suoritti
Piikkiön Myrskylinnanmäellä syys - lokakuussa 1968.
Liippo, Lassi 1985. Piikkiö, Huttala, Huttalanmäki. Fosfaattianalyysi.
Poutiainen, Hannu 1988. Turku - Paimio -moottoritielinjan inventointi 11.5.-31.5.1987.
Rinne, Juhani 1905. Kaularenkaan löytöpaikka Suutari Antero Toivosen tontilla Piikkiössä.
Saarinen, Riikka 1999. Piikkiö, Moisio, Moision Alitalo. Esiroomalaisen asuinpaikan kaivaus 23.5.-
29.5.1997.
Salmo, Helmer 1953. Hopea-aarteen löytöpaikka Piikkiön pitäjän Hadvalan kylän Ylhäisten talon
maalla.
Salo, Unto 1975. Piikkiö, Moisio, Kalmumäki.
Salo, Unto 1975. Piikkiö, Moisio, Kalmumäki. Kertomus 6.-10.6.1975 välisen ajan kaivauksista.
Sartes, Minna 1993. Piikkiö, Koski. Rautakautisen asuinpaikan pelastuskaivaus 14.-24.6.1993.
Tamminen, Marketta 1965. Kertomus rautakautisen kalmistoalueen kaivauksesta 4.6.-17.6.1963 Piik-
kiön pitäjän Teppalan kylän Myrskylinna -nimisellä mäellä, paikalla, jonka omistavat rakennus-
mestari Lindqvist ja bensiiniaseman hoitaja Antti Niinistö.
Tiitinen, Teija 1992. Piikkiö, Runko, Koskenhaka / Onnela. Rautakautisen asuinpaikka / kalmisto­­-
­alu­een koekuopitus ja pintapoiminta.
Viitaharju, Johanna 1984. Piikkiö, Raadelma. Mahd. rautakautisen röykkiöhaudan pohjan tarkastus
17.11.1984.
Viitaharju, Johanna 1984. Piikkiö, Tuorla. Mahd. pronssikautisten haudanpohjien tarkastus
20.11.1984.
Vikkula, Anne 1981. Piikkiö, Myrskylinna. Tarkastus 8.10.1981.
Vikkula, Anne 1982. Piikkiö, Myrskylinna. Koekaivaus rautakautisen kalmiston alueella.

Salo

Appelgren, Hjalmar 1896. Redogörelse för de af undertecknad under September månad 1896 utförda
antiqvariska arbetena.
Appelgren, Hjalmar 1896. Uskela. Isokylä.
Appelgren, Hjalmar 1898. Uskela. Hakastaro by. Kankare hmn.
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Salo, Viitamäki 1995. Museovirasto. Muinaisjäännösten hoito. Seurantaraportti.
Asplund, Henrik 1998. Salo, Tampaltan kruunu. Tarkastuskäynti 26.09.1994.
Asplund, Henrik 1998. Salo, Vuohensaari. Tarkastuskäynti 01.08.1998.
Brusila, Heljä 2005. Salo, Breidilä, Friisinkruunu. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 2005. Salo, Pelimäki. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 2006. Salo, Varesvuori. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Carpelan, Christian & Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne & Uino, Pirjo 1980. Salo, Isokylä, Ketohaka.
Kaivauskertomus v. 1980.
Carpelan, Christian & Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne & Uino, Pirjo 1981. Salo, Isokylä, Ketohaka
1981. Rautakautinen asuinpaikka ja hautaröykkiö 11.
Carpelan, Christian & Uino, Pirjo 1978. Salo, Isokylä, Katajamäki & Ketohaka. Kaivauskertomus v. 1978.
Cleve, Nils 1930. Kertomus muinaistieteellisistä kaivauksista Uskelan Lukkarinmäen rautakautisella
kalmistolla kesällä 1930.

446
Europaeus, Aarne 1914. Kertomus kaivauksista Uskelan pitäjän Isokylän Nohterin Ketohaassa Kata-
jamäen palstatilan asuinrakennuksen paikalla 9-13/X 1913.
Europaeus, Aarne 1914. Kertomus muinaistieteellisistä kaivauksista Uskelassa kesäk. 1914.
Europaeus, Aarne 1917. Pronssikauden keihäänkärjen (H.M.l. 7109) löytöpaikka Uskelan pitäjän Vil-
lilän kylässä Tomman talon Myllypakan torpan pihamaalla.
Europaeus, Aarne 1917. Uusia löytöjä Uskelan Isokylän Nohterin talon Ketohaasta (Katajamäen pals­tal­ta).
Europaeus, Aarne 1923. Kivikautisia asuinpaikkalöytöjä Katajamäeltä Uskelan pitäjän Isossakylässä.
Europaeus, Aarne 1923. Käynti Uskelan Sinivuoren kivikautisella asuinpaikalla.
Europaeus, Aarne 1924. Vaakitusmatka Uskelan Sinivuoren kivikautiselle asuinpaikalle.
Hackman, Alfred 1910. Uskela. En brandgraf från folkvandringstiden på Palomäki backe i Isokylä by.
Hackman, Alfred 1914. Fortsatt undersökning af ett röse från folkvandringstiden på Palomäki backe
å Puonti hemmans mark i Isokylä by, Uskela socken.
Hackman, Alfred 1914. Undersökning af två brandgrafvar på Ketohaka på Nohteri hemmans mark i
Isokylä by af Uskela socken.
Hackman, Alfred 1915. Uskela socken. Undersökning av röset nr 6 på Ketohaka på Nohteri hemmans
mark i Isokylä by.
Hackman, Alfred 1916. Uskela socken. Undersökning av ett fyndställe från folkvandringstiden på
Perälä torps mark i Isokylä by.
Hackman, Alfred 1916. Uskela socken. Undersökning av ett röse på Ketomäki torps gårdsplan å
Puonti hemmans mark i Isokylä by i juni 1916.
Hackman, Alfred 1916. Uskela socken. Undersökning av röset nr 6 på Ketohaka på Nohteri hemmans
mark i Isokylä by.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1962. Uskelan Isonkylän hautaraunioiden merkitseminen Uskelan rakennus­
kaavaan 12-13/10; 16/11 1961.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1963. Salon (ent. Uskelaa) Isonkylän Ketohaan rauniokalmiston tarkastus
26.9.1963.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1963. Uskelan Pappilan haassa sijaitsevan rautakautisen kalmiston tarkastus
11-12.9.1962.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1966. Salon kaupungin, Mököisten kl:n Mahlakankareen esihistoriallisten
löytöpaikkojen tarkistus 25.9.1963.
Katiskoski, Kaarlo 1983. Salo, Isokylä, Koivumäki. Koekaivaus rautakautisella muinaisjäännösalueel-
la 1983.
Kivikoski, Ella 1931. Kertomus Uskelan Isossakylässä Hämeenojan tilalla sijaitsevan rautakautisen
hautaroukkion osittaisesta kaivauksesta elok. 3-5 p:nä 1931.
Kivikoski, Ella 1934. Kaivaus Uskelan pitäjän Isonkylän Perälän palstalla 14-16 p:nä toukok. 1934.
Kivikoski, Ella 1936. Kertomus kaivauksesta Uskelan pitäjän Isonkylän Vanutehtaan maalla touko­
kuun 9 päivänä 1936.
Kivikoski, Ella 1937. Hautaröykkiön kaivaus Salon (Halikon) Joensuun kartanon maalla, n.s. Valho-
janmäessä kesällä 1937.
Kivikoski, Ella 1937. Kertomus röykkiön kaivauksesta Salon (Uskelan) Isonkylän Isontuvan maalla 1937.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1934. Kertomus Jorma Leppäahon tarkastusmatkalta Salon Seudun kunnallis-
sairaalarakennustyömaalle Uskelan pitäjässä, tutkimaan rautamiekan 9849:n löytöpaikkaa.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1939. Vanhemman rautakauden polttohauta Salon kauppalan Ylhäisten Metsäran-
nan huvilapalstalla.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1950. Intendentti Jorma Leppäahon tarkastuskäynti Salon kauppalaan liitetyllä
Isonkylän alueella 11.7.1949.

447
Leppäaho, Jorma 1953. Hautakuoppien tarkastus Uskelan Isokylän Peltolan tilan maalla.
Linturi, Elvi 1980. Salo, Vanutehdas. Rautakautinen asuinpaikka ja röykkiö.
Linturi, Elvi 1981. Salo, Vanutehdas 1. Rautakautinen asuinpaikka.
Linturi, Elvi 1981. Salo, Vanutehdas 2. Rautakautinen asuinpaikka.
Linturi, Elvi 1982. Salo, Vanutehdas 3. Rautakautinen kalmistoalue.
Linturi, Elvi 1983. Salo, Vanutehdas 4. Rautakautinen kalmisto ja asuinpaikka.
Luho, Ville 1945. Kertomus Uskelan pitäjän Pukkilan kartanon maalla olevien kivikautisten asuin-
paikkojen kartoittamisesta.
Nordman, C. A. 1922. Fyndplats på Lukkarinmäki, Uskela socken.
Poutiainen, Hannu 1989. Turku - Helsinki -moottoritielinjan arkeologinen inventointi välillä Paimio -
Muurla 1.6.-23.6. ja 25.9.-6.10.1989.
Pälsi, Sakari 1934. Salo, Perälä, tehtailija A. Digertin huvilapalstan rautakauden löydöt keväällä 1934.
Raike, Eeva 2001. Salon kaupungin arkeologinen inventointi 2001.
Rinne, Juhani 1905. Palomäen kalmisto Puonnin talon maalla Uskelan pitäjän Isossakylässä.
Salmo, Helmer 1930. Uskela, Moisionkylä, Mahlakankare.
Salonen, Helmer 1927. Selostus kiinteiden muinaisjäännösten muistiinmerkitsemisestä kesällä 1927
Uskelan pitäjässä Turun ja Porin läänissä.
Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne 1987. Salo: Vanutehdas 3, röykkiöt 1 ja 2. Kaivaus 1982.
Tallgren, A. M. 1906. Plooperin l. Sinivuoren kivikautinen asuinpaikka Villilän l. Villän Pukkilan
talon maalla Uskelan pitäjässä.
Tallgren, A. M. 1912. Kertomus allekirjoittaneen toimittamista tutkimuksista Uskelan Isokylän hauta-
roukkioilla v. 1912.
Tallgren, A. M. 1913. Kertomus allekirjoittaneen muinaistieteellisistä tutkimuksista Uskelan Pukkilan
Sinivuoren kivikauden asuinpaikalla elokuussa v. 1913.
Tallgren, A. M. 1916. Kertomus tutkimuksistani Uskelan Isonkylän vanutehtaan kalmistolla 25-26p/9
1916.
Vikkula, Anne 1983. Salo, Aninen, Mahlakankare. Rautakautinen löytöpaikka. Koekaivauskertomus.
Vikkula, Anne 1983. Salo, Mököinen, Ilola. Kivikautinen löytöpaikka. Koekaivauskertomus.
Vikkula, Anne 1983. Salo, Pahkavuori, Hopeakankare. Rautakautisen löytöpaikan koekaivaus.

Sauvo

Anttila, Marja 1996. Sauvo, Korpela (Patarautila), Keskitalo. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Appelgren-Kivalo, Hjalmar 1909. Sauvo, Salmen kylä.
Asplund, Henrik 1996. Sauvo, Riihipelto. Museovirasto. Muinaisjäännösten hoito. Seurantaraportti.
Bilund, Antti 1994. Sauvo, Timperlä. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Bilund, Antti 1996. Sauvo, Ristniemi, Ullaskrooppi. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Bilund, Antti 1997. Sauvo, Danskulla. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1983. Tarkastuskäyntiraportti Jukka Rinteen ilmoituksen perusteella 27.10.1983 Sauvon
Talinkylään tehdystä tarkastusmatkasta.
Brusila, Heljä 1987. Raportti tarkastuskäynnistä Sauvon (Karunan) Orssaaren kylään, Isotalon tilalle
22.10.1987.
Brusila, Heljä 1995. Sauvo, Koivumaa. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1995. Sauvo, Steninge. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.

448
Brusila, Heljä 1999. Sauvo, Rajalahti, Rajalahti 1. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1999. Sauvo, Rajalahti, Rajalahti 2. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1999. Sauvo, Rajalahti, Rölax. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Brusila, Heljä 1999. Sauvo, Rajalahti, Soreala. Arkeologisen kohteen tarkastus.
Hackman, Alfred 1909. Sagu. På den Kylänpää hemman tillhöriga delen af Myllymäki backe vid
Salmi by i Sagu socken …
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1965. Sauvon Finskilän rautakautisten hautaraunioiden tarkastuksia
29.9.1964.
Hirviluoto, Anna-Liisa 1965. Sauvon Mäntykylässä olevan kivikautisen asuinpaikan tarkastus
12.11.1964.
Koskimies, Mirja 1965. Kertomus Sauvon Vähänkylän Silkkilänjärven miekan (KM 16742) löytöpai-
kasta.
Koskimies, Mirja 1966. Kertomus Sauvon Mäntykylän Nummenharjan kivikautisen asuinpaikan kai-
vauksesta 28/7-10/8 1966.
Koskimies, Mirja 1966. Sauvo, Mäntykylä: Nummenharjan kivikautisen asuinpaikan kaivaus kesä­
kuussa 1965.
Koskimies, Mirja 1967. Lisätietoja Sauvon pitäjän Ruonlahden ja Osmalahden kylien kiinteistä
muinaisjäännöksistä.
Koskimies, Mirja 1968. Sauvo, Saustila, Heinilä. Kivikautinen asuinpaikka?
Koskimies, Mirja 1969. Sauvo, Ryttarböle, Ratsula. Kivikautinen asuinpaikka?
Lehtosalo, Pirkko-Liisa 1967. Kertomus tarkastuskaivauksesta, jonka Pirkko-Liisa Lehtosalo suoritti
heinäkuussa 1966 Sauvon Finskilän yksinäistilasta eroitetun mv. Erkki Niemisen (os. Karunan-
tie, Sauvo) omistaman Ala-Junnolan palstan maalla sijaitsevassa kalmistossa.
Lehtosalo, Pirkko-Liisa 1968. Kertomus kaivauksesta, jonka Pirkko-Liisa Lehtosalo suoritti 21.7.-10.8.
1967 Sauvon Finskilän yksinäistilasta eroitetun ja mv. Väinö Niemisen (os. Karunantie, Sauvo)
omistaman Ala-Junnolan palstan maalla sijaitsevassa kalmistossa.
Leppäaho, Jorma 1950. Pronssikautisten hautaraunioiden tarkastus ja erään tutkiminen Sauvon
pitäjän Ristniemen kylän alueella ja erään raunion tutkiminen mainitun kylän Pellonpäässä
(Nieminen).
Luoto, Jukka & Riikonen, Jaana 1984. Sauvo, Vahtinen, Pulkin omakotipalsta. Pelastuskaivaus 5.7.-
7.7.1983.
Luoto, Jukka 1979. Kertomus koetutkimuksista Sauvon Lautkankareen muinaislinnalla ja sen ym-
päristössä 15.6.-15.7.1978.
Raike, Eeva 2001. Sauvon arkeologinen inventointi.
Rinne, Juhani 1906. Sauvo, Kirkonkylä, Laurilan talon "Ison niityn" löytö.
Rinne, Juhani 1906. Sauvo. Salmenkylä ja Lautakankare.
Salmo, Helmer 1954. Roomalaisaikaisen kalmiston tutkimus Sauvon pitäjän Finskilän yksinäistilan
Niemisen palstalla v. 1954.
Schauman-Lönnqvist, Marianne 1998. Sauvo, Korvala 1997. Vanhemman rautakauden kalmiston kai-
vaus 2-30.6.1997.
Seppänen, Kimmo 1977. Sauvo, Järvenkylä, Nummi. Tarkastuskertomus ilmoitetuista "kalliopiirrok-
sista" 22.8.1976.
Seppänen, Kimmo 1978. Kertomus koekuoppien kaivamisesta Sauvon Kalmasmäkeen 29.06.1978.
Tallgren, A. M. 1926. Sauvo. Salmen kylässä oleva Säkkäreenmäki.
Tallgren, A. M. 1930. Sauvo, Mäenalan Isoniityn makasiinin löytökohta.
Tuovinen, Tapani 1977. Uhrikiven tarkastuskertomus.

449
Waris, Marketta 1960. Karunan pitäjän inventointikertomus.
Waris, Marketta 1960. Sauvon pitäjän inventointikertomus.
Vikkula, Anne 1982. Sauvo, Ristniemi, Yli-Ristniemi (Ullaskroop). Röykkiön tarkastus.

Särkisalo

Ruohonen, Juha 2002. Särkisalon arkeologinen perusinventointi 2002.

Västanfjärd

Asplund, Henrik 1987. Västanfjärd,

������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Galtarby, Råberget. ���������������������������������������������
Selvitys syksyllä vuonna 1986 löytyneestä ki-
vikautisesta asuinpaikasta.
Asplund, Henrik 1988. Västanfjärd, Galtarby, Råberget. Provutgrävning av en stenåldersboplats 23-
24.05.1987.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Västanfjärd, Galtarby (II). Provutgrävning av en stenåldersboplats tillhörande
båtyxkulturen 04.06-05.06.1988.
Asplund, Henrik 1989. Västanfjärd, Galtarby. Selvitys
����������������������������������������������������
vuonna 1988 tehdyistä kivikauden asuinpaik-
kahavainnoista.
Asplund, Henrik 1991. Västanfjärd, Tappo. Provutgrävning av en epineolitisk boplats 1.-4.6.1989.
Kankkunen, Päivi 1996. Västanfjärd, Tappo, Vesteräng - varhaismetallikautisen asuinpaikan koe­
kaivaus.
Planting, Hildur 1933. Fasta fornlämningar i Västanfjärds socken.

450
 Appendix 1

The sites

The list of sites is a printout of some main information concerning all of the 3,226
sites included in the study.188 Basic information as to location, type and dating
as well as references have been included. The site names have been assembled
from information regarding both village and site name in the way they have been
presented in documents and literature. In several cases either the place-name or the
name of the village is missing, which should be taken into account when reading
the list. Some identical site names also occur, which is partly due to the need to
separate multiperiod or multifunctional sites in the classification.189
Geographical coordinates have been recalculated to the Finnish coordinate
system (KKJ) zone 3 grid (X0, Y0) as well as to the WGS-84 compatible EUREF-FIN
system (E-X, E-Y). Zone 3 is commonly used as a general grid (YKJ) in Finland,
and the European Reference System (EUREF) has emerged as the new basic grid
in Europe. The recalculation of old coordinates has been done in order to make
the treatment of the data easier. The boundary of the Finnish coordinate zones
1 and 2 divide the study area, which means that most coordinates of sites in the
western part of the study area were originally given in a different coordinate system
from the coordinates of sites in the eastern part. The coordinates in the list have
been rounded off and presented with a number of digits referring to a ten-metre
accuracy. Some coordinates, furthermore, refer only to a certain point within the
site, or within the probable location of the site, i.e. the mean calculated from the X
and Y minimum and maximum.

188
In addition to the actual sites the list contains 10 items, which have been given the
classification ’non-site’. These are catalogued finds that are not artefacts as well as some
reported sites later identified as natural formations. The concept should not be confused
with the issue of non-site archaeology discussed in chapter 1.4.
189
There are also other, more general, problems regarding site-names. In surprisingly many
cases site-names have been changed within more recent survey reports – often without
any explanation. The same site may thus occur under several names, which further
complicates the comparison of older data with current reports. In other publications a
few sites thus may occur under a different name than in this appendix. The changing
of site-names is not the only problem, but also the lack of explanation why and stating
under which name a site (or some part of it) has previously been registered. One thing
promoting the blurring of older names and data is the current tendency of grouping
together old sites and observations into bigger entities in order to distinguish larger
areas or landscapes for protection. This is good for protective purposes, but makes it
more difficult to use the survey data for research.

451
 In addition to referring to site borders, the X and Y minimum and maximum
may refer to the inexactness of the location of the site. In cases where the uncertainty
of coordinates (or site borders) has been indicated in the referenced sources, an
imprecision (or site size) equal to, or exceeding ± 10 metres, but less than ± 100
metres, has been indicated by placing an asterisk (*) after the site name. One
exception is the cairns listed by Tuovinen & Vuorinen (1992) where the ± 25 m
precision refers to the most accurate class of measurement. If the precision is equal
to, or poorer than ± 100 metres the sites have been marked with two asterisks (**).
Sites measured with such a poor precision as ± 1000 metres have usually been left
without coordinates; the cases where such coordinates have been used are ones
presented in (or estimated from) literature or reports as having such an error,
even though in most of these cases it can be assumed that the accuracy is better.
In the case of some coordinates (especially regarding stray finds), obtained from a
database called TYARKTIKA at the University of Turku (cf. Tuovinen & Vuorinen
1992; Vuorinen 2000d), the coordinates have been marked as having poor accuracy
(**). This has been done as the data utilized was incomplete and it is thus somewhat
uncertain from what sources the coordinates were originally acquired. Similar
problems occur in other cases as well. It is surprisingly common that the location
of sites in survey reports and other sources do not contain information specifying
the exactitude of measurements. This means that some coordinates referred to
without an asterisk in reality could have a poor accuracy.190 This does not lead to
distortion of site locations in the scales used within this study, but it means that a
few coordinates in Appendix 1 may contain errors that could become apparent if
using them as a basis for further surveys or other detailed fieldwork.
The type of the sites is generally presented in the way it has been registered
during surveys and excavations. The general dating has been given in accordance
with the chronological framework used in the Registry of Ancient Monuments
at the National Board of Antiquities, complemented with some more detailed
information reagarding periods, especially in the case of Iron Age cemeteries and

190
The accuracy of the geographical location of registered sites has emerged as a new type
of problem within recent survey reports. It seems to be quite common that locations
of sites are given with a one metre accuracy, regardless of whether the location has
been measured so exactly. One reason promoting this mostly false exactness is the use
of handheld (in reality inexact) GPS equipment, without realising that the readings
may contain several errors, which make the one metre accuracy doubtful. Another
reason may be related to the fact that the National Board of Antiquities has started
to require that coordinates are given within a specific coordinate system (the Finnish
grid 3). This is not a problem as such, but as coordinate recalculations mostly are done
with programs using a one metre accuracy, more inexact coordinates may have been
recalculated with this accuracy and the rounding off to reach the original accuracy may
have been forgotten.

452
stray finds. The period codes are as follows: MES = Mesolithic, CC = Comb Ceramic,
BAT = Battle Axe Culture, LNE/EBA = Late Neolithic and/or Early Bronze Age, LBA
= Late Bronze Age, PRIA = Pre-Roman Iron Age, ERA = Early Roman Iron Age, LRA
= Late Roman Iron Age, MIG = Migration Period, MER = Merovingian Period, VA =
Viking Age, CP = Crusades Period.
In just about all cases main references regarding the sites have been listed. These
include calologue numbers of finds, report references and literature.191 When, in
a few cases, the comment “part of” occur in brackets after the list of cataloque
numbers, it indicates an exceptionally mixed find material, where part of the finds
signify the site in question, while others represent another site-type or dating. In
some cases literature has been regarded as more important than field reports – in
other cases the reverse; this means that the list should not be regarded as a complete
list of all documents or literature concerning single sites. This is especially true
concerning the literature references, while the listed catalogue numbers and report
references are somewhat more complete. Unreferenced sites may occur in cases
when sites have been located, but not yet documented in writing, or cases when the
sources used have been incomplete. Identical references concerning reports mean
that there are several reports by the same author from the same year.

191
The report originals are kept in different archives. All of the reports listed above and
referenced in Appendix 1 are, however, available either as originals or copies at the
National Board of Antiquities in Helsinki.

453
454
Dragsfjärd
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Ansvedja Settlement site Stone Age CC KM 14289:1-5 Cleve 1943
Biskopsö Stray find Stone Age KM 14333:1-2
Björkboda 667249 325186 666969 25179 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Björkboda Stray find Undated KM 19439
Bolax, Tjukan 664873 326142 664594 26135 Tomtning Medieval or Post-Medieval Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Böhle, Storholmen 664510 324353 664231 24347 Cairn? Undated Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Böle, Kyrksundet ** 664818 324724 664539 24717 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 2503A:3
Fåfängskär 665868 324784 665588 24777 Stone oven Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Fåfängskär 665893 324766 665613 24760 Tomtning? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Genböle 667232 324965 666952 24958 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Genböle 667223 325129 666942 25122 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Genböle, Tallkullen 667173 325000 666893 24994 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666662 325295 666382 25288 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666614 325226 666334 25220 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666613 325226 666333 25219 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666643 325182 666363 25175 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666674 325270 666394 25263 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666633 325277 666353 25270 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666562 325160 666282 25153 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666541 325158 666261 25151 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666606 325165 666326 25158 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666576 325169 666296 25162 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666570 325175 666291 25168 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle 666558 325237 666278 25230 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hertsböle, Ansvedja B 666829 325011 666549 25004 Stray find Stone Age TYA 360:6-12 Asplund 1987 Myhrman 1990b
Hertsböle, Ansvedja D 666823 325022 666543 25015 Stray find Stone Age TYA 440:1-5 Asplund 1988 Myhrman 1990b
Hertsböle, Ansvedja E 666786 325066 666506 25059 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 441:1-22 Asplund 1988
Hertsböle, Ansvedja L1 666839 325006 666559 24999 Stray find Stone Age TYA 476:1-2 Asplund 1989
Hertsböle, Masugnsträsket 666572 325026 666292 25019 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 366:1-2 Asplund 1987 Myhrman 1990b
Hertsböle, Senatsberget 666635 325136 666355 25129 Settlement site Stone Age CC, BAT TYA 365:1-9, TYA Asplund 1987; Sipilä 1996; Sipilä Myhrman 1990b
634:1-47, TYA 638:1-97 1996
Hiittinen, Bötskäret 664773 325024 664494 25017 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hiittinen, Bötskäret 664761 325029 664482 25022 Tomtning Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991;
Heikki­nen & Näränen 1992
 Hiittinen, Bötskäret 664777 325034 664498 25027 Cairn Undated Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Hiittinen, Högholmen 665060 325012 664781 25005 Harbour Medieval Edgren 1977
Hiittinen, Högholmen 665060 325007 664781 25000 Harbour Medieval Edgren 1977
Hiittinen, Kalvholmen 665014 324741 664735 24734 Cairn? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991;
Heikki­nen & Näränen 1992
Hiittinen, Kalvholmen 664991 324753 664711 24746 Cairn? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991;
Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Hiittinen, Kyrksundet 664918 324692 664639 24685 Stray find Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Hiittinen, Kyrksundet ** 664929 324752 664650 24745 Settlement site Iron Age and/or VA, CP KM 26619:1-133, KM Fagerstöm & Roth 1991; Asplund
Medieval 27813:1-164, KM 1992; Fagerström & Roth 1992; Jus-
28363:1-303, KM sila 1992; Tuovinen 1993; Hirviluoto
28832:1-226, KM 1993; Lempiäinen 1993; Jäkärä
29578:1-240, KM 1994; Lempiäinen 1994; Asplund
29658:1, KM 30324:1- 1994; Jäkärä 1995; Lempiäinen
90, Rahak. 93042:1-6 1995; Mäntylä 1995; Mäntylä 1995;
(part of) Mäntylä 1996; Jäkärä 1997
Hiittinen, Kyrksundet 664922 324732 664643 24726 Chapel site Medieval KM (hist.) 38086:1-5, Nordman 1938; Nordman 1939;
KM (hist.) 39097:1-2, Jäkärä 1994; Asplund 1994;
KM 26619:1-133, KM Mäntylä 1995; Jäkärä 1995;
27813:1-164, KM Mäntylä 1995; Mäntylä 1996;
28363:1-303, KM Jäkärä 1996; Jäkärä 1997
28832:1-226, KM
29578:1-240, KM 29658:1,
KM 30324:1-90, Rahak.
93042:1-6 (part of)
Hiittinen, Mossarna 665096 324810 664817 24804 Stone oven Historical Period Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Hiittinen, Mossarna 665095 324822 664816 24815 Stone oven Historical Period Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Hiittinen, Mossarna 665101 324828 664821 24821 Stone oven Historical Period Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Hiittinen, Stora Ängesö 665709 324884 665430 24877 Tomtning Historical Period Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Skepparhamn
Holma, Hamnholmen 664995 324170 664716 24164 Cairn Undated Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Holma, Kaldoholmen 665159 324247 664880 24241 Cairn Iron Age? Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Holma, Kaldoholmen 665181 324264 664901 24258 Cairn Iron Age? Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Holma, Stora Ängeskär 665093 324374 664814 24367 Cairn Iron Age? Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Holma, Stora Ängeskär 665103 324373 664823 24366 Cairn Iron Age? Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Holma, Stora Ängeskär 665112 324389 664833 24382 Labyrinth Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1992
Holma, Stora Ängeskär 665093 324302 664814 24295 Cairn Iron Age VA TMM 12960 Tuovinen 1990a; Tuovinen &
Vuorinen 1992; Tuovinen 1994
Holma, Västerfladan 665294 324045 665015 24038 Labyrinth Undated Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Högsåra 665657 324003 665377 23997 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Högsåra, Byviken 665823 324129 665543 24122 Inscription Post-Medieval Heikkinen & Näränen 1992

455
 Högsåra, Långfuruholm 666072 323893 665792 23887 Cairn Medieval or Post-Medieval KM 9749:2 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

456
Högsåra, Nämanön 666040 324061 665761 24055 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Högsåra, Nämanön 666043 324062 665763 24056 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kasnäs, Byholmen 665465 324355 665185 24348 Cairn? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991; Heik-
kinen & Näränen 1992
Kasnäs, Byholmen 665476 324346 665196 24339 Cairn? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Kasnäs, Garpholmen 665490 324334 665210 24327 Clearance cairn Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991; Heik-
kinen & Näränen 1992
Kasnäs, Garpholmen 665482 324327 665202 24320 Clearance cairn Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991; Heik-
kinen & Näränen 1992
Kasnäs, Kasnäs näset 665551 324360 665271 24354 Cairn Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991; Heik-
kinen & Näränen 1992
Kråkvik 666915 324912 666635 24905 Stray find Stone Age TYA 646:1
Kråkvik, Ansvedja Stray find Stone Age KM 2503A:13
Kråkvik, Ansvedja Boat find Undated KM 2503A:16
Kråkvik, Ansvedja Stray find Undated KM 8871:1-2
Kråkvik, Ansvedja Stray find Stone Age TMM 14122:1b
Kråkvik, Ansvedja A * 666854 324994 666574 24988 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 360:1-5, TYA Asplund 1987; Asplund 1988;
434:1-3; TYA 476:3-5 Asplund 1989
Kråkvik, Ansvedja C 666890 324986 666609 24979 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 433:1-9, TYA Asplund 1988; Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
476:6
Kråkvik, Ansvedja L2 666877 324981 666597 24974 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 476:7-8 Asplund 1989
Kråkvik, Ansvedja L3 666892 324981 666612 24974 Stray find Stone Age TYA 476:9 Asplund 1989
Kärra, Furuborg Stray find Stone Age TMM 14122:1a
Kärra, Jordbro ** 667016 324698 666736 24691 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kärra, Jordbro ** 667016 324698 666736 24691 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kärra, Jordbro ** 667016 324698 666736 24691 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kärra, Jordbro 667020 324702 666740 24695 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2503A:22 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kärra, Jordbro 667025 324704 666745 24698 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze LNE/ KM 2503A:22, TMM Cleve 1943; Cleve 1946; Asplund Meinander 1954a
Age EBA 13691, TMM 14122:1- 1985; Asplund 1987
136 (cf. KM 11832:1-9),
KM 11720:1-126, KM
16544:1-169, KM
17329:1-2, KM 19709:1-
9, KM 21217:1-2, TYA
242:1-5, TYA 361
Kärra, Jordbro Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age VA KM 9575:1
Kärra, Uppgård Stray find Stone Age KM 11993
 Lillfinhofva 667638 325190 667357 25183 Charcoal Historical Period Asplund 1989
burning or tar
extraction site
Lillfinhofva 667638 325190 667357 25183 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 475:1-11 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Långnäs 666927 324789 666647 24782 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Långnäs, Långnäsudden 666951 324786 666671 24779 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Långnäs, Långnäsudden 666951 324788 666671 24781 Cairn Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 2503A:1 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Långnäs, Nyhem Stray find Stone Age KM 10109
Långnäs, Nyhem Stray find Stone Age KM 10702
Långnäs, Söljeholmen 666229 324627 665949 24620 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nordanå 667532 324781 667252 24774 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nordanå Stray find Stone Age
Nordanå, Bredö ** 667708 324389 667427 24382 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nordanå, Bötesberget 667674 325079 667393 25072 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 443:1-12, KM Asplund 1988; Kankkunen 1992 Myhrman 1990b
266616:1-600, KM
27002:1-14
Nordanå, Mellangård Stray find Stone Age KM 11722
Nordanå, Nordanå A 667581 325045 667301 25038 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 432:1-10 Asplund 1988 Myhrman 1990b
Nordanå, Nordanå B 667640 325049 667360 25042 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 442:1-14 Asplund 1988 Myhrman 1990b
Nordanå, Nordanå D 667617 325111 667337 25104 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 612:1 Asplund 1994
Nordanå, Nyborg Stray find Stone Age KM 17856
Nordanå, Storölandet 667592 324392 667311 24386 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rosala * 664663 324361 664384 24354 Village Medieval or Post- KM 27812:1-14 Asplund 1994
Medieval
Rosala, Brunkholmen 664747 324186 664468 24179 Cairn Undated Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Rosala, Enholmen 664907 324906 664628 24899 Tomtning? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Rosala, Hamnholmen 664964 324179 664685 24173 Cairn Undated Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Rosala, Lattopete 664612 324342 664333 24336 Inscription Post-Medieval Fagerstöm & Roth 1991;
Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Rosala, Ryssberget 664650 324366 664371 24359 Cairn? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Rosala, Snåldö 664785 323852 664506 23845 Cairn Undated Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Rosala, Sommarö 664653 324275 664374 24268 Inscription Post-Medieval Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Rosala, Storholmen 664545 324308 664266 24302 Tomtning? Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Rosala, Västra Granholmen 664624 324609 664345 24602 Cairn Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991;
Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Rosala, Örö 664207 323825 663928 23819 Cairn Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Rosendal ** 667534 325510 667254 25503 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rosendal 667604 325544 667324 25537 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

457
 Rosendal 667564 325509 667284 25502 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

458
Rosendal 667593 325529 667313 25522 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rosendal, Kulla Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 9575:2
Rosendal, Lappokullen 667437 325447 667156 25440 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rövik 666392 324706 666112 24699 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rövik ** 666410 324703 666130 24696 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Skinnarvik, Falkön 667766 324385 667486 24379 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Skinnarvik, Falkön 667773 324410 667493 24403 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Skogskär 666158 323589 665878 23582 Cairn? Iron Age? Näränen 1996
Stora Ängesön * 665573 324877 665294 24870 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 30661 Åhlen, Tuovinen & Myhrman
1997; Åhlen, Tuovinen &
Myhrman 1998
Storfinhofva, Oxmossen ** 667604 325177 667324 25170 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 517:1-33 Asplund 1994 Myhrman 1990b
Storfinhofva, Storfinhofva 1 667704 325131 667424 25124 Settlement site Stone Age BAT TYA 474:1-5 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Storfinhofva, Storfinhofva 2 667702 325123 667421 25116 Settlement site Stone Age BAT TYA 474:6-7 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Storfinhofva, Storfinhofva 3 667657 325141 667376 25134 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 474:8-9 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Storfinhofva, Storfinhofva 4 667651 325162 667370 25155 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 474:10-16 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Söderby 667006 324698 666726 24691 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderby 667007 324698 666727 24691 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderby 667006 324700 666726 24693 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderby 667007 324700 666727 24693 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderby 667010 324699 666730 24692 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 10108:1-5 Kivikoski 1936 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderlångvik 666685 324544 666405 24537 Stray find Undated
Söderlångvik, Knipängsbacken 666952 324697 666672 24690 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze LNE/ TMM 14122:1c, KM Cleve 1943; Asplund 1987 Meinander 1954a
Age EBA 11721:1-22, TYA 362:1-2
Söderlångvik, Kosackkullan 666683 324599 666403 24592 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderlångvik, Kosackkullan 666680 324600 666400 24593 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderlångvik, Nöjis ** 666983 324553 666703 24547 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 243:1-24, TYA Asplund 1985; Asplund 1985; Myhrman 1990b
275:1-14, TYA 327:1-31, Asplund 1987; Asplund 1988;
TYA 389:1-25, TYA Asplund 1989; Asplund 1991
471:1-88, TYA 516:1-32
Söderlångvik, Söderby 666846 324639 666566 24632 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Söderlångvik, Söderby 667005 324702 666725 24695 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Bergström 1985; Kostet et al. 1989
Söderlångvik, Söderby I 666927 324617 666647 24611 Settlement site Stone Age CC, BAT TYA 363:1-7, TYA Asplund 1987; Asplund 1996 Myhrman 1990b
630:1-40
Söderlångvik, Söderby II 666932 324608 666652 24601 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 364:1-17 Asplund 1987 Myhrman 1990b
Söderlångvik, Söderby R1 667006 324699 666726 24693 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Kostet et al. 1989
Söderlångvik, Söderby R2 667007 324699 666727 24692 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Kostet et al. 1989
 Söderlångvik, Söderby R3 667005 324697 666725 24690 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Kostet et al. 1989
Söderlångvik, Söderbyträsket 666912 324597 666632 24590 Pollen sample site
Söderlångvik, Söderlångvik 1 666707 324561 666427 24554 Cairn? Undated Tuovinen 1993
Söderlångvik, Söderlångvik 2 666747 324566 666467 24559 Cairn? Undated Tuovinen 1993
Vänö, Härön 664750 322689 664471 22683 Cairn Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Vänö, Trollberget 664968 323171 664688 23165 Labyrinth Undated Fagerstöm & Roth 1991
Ytterkulla, Labbnäsåsen 667051 324963 666771 24956 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ytterkulla, Malmisberget 667143 324929 666863 24922 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ytterölmoss, Bösvik Stray find Stone Age KM 2503A:11
Ölmos 667063 324415 666783 24408 Stray find Stone Age TYA 590:1 Cleve 1943; Asplund 1992
Ölmos Stray find Stone Age TYA 649:1-2
Ölmos, Finnviken 666450 324288 666170 24282 Tomtning? Undated Tuovinen 1991
Ölmos, Hälsingholmen 666678 323758 666398 23752 Stone oven Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1985
Ölmos, Hälsingholmen 666679 323768 666399 23761 Stone oven Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1985
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 666875 324432 666595 24425 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Asplund 1994
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 1 666920 324387 666640 24381 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 518:1-14 Asplund 1990; Tuovinen 1991 Myhrman 1990b
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 10 666875 324434 666594 24427 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1991; Asplund 1994
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 106 666924 324455 666644 24449 Cairn Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 1910 Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 107 666927 324459 666646 24453 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 108 666924 324457 666644 24451 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2503A:23 Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 109 666926 324448 666645 24442 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 11 666885 324467 666605 24460 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1991
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 12 666879 324420 666599 24413 Pit-trap? Undated Tuovinen 1991
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 13 666869 324432 666589 24425 Pit-trap? Undated Tuovinen 1991
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 14 666878 324426 666598 24419 Charcoal Historical Period Tuovinen 1991
burning or tar
extraction site
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 2 ** 666875 324431 666595 24424 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze LNE/ TYA 518:15-41, TYA Asplund 1990; Tuovinen 1991;
Age EBA, 575:9, TYA 611:1-80 Asplund 1994
LBA
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 3 * 666881 324454 666601 24448 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze LNE/ TYA 518:42-46, TYA Asplund 1990; Tuovinen 1991;
Age EBA 575:1-6, TYA 588:1-270 Tuovinen 1993
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 4 666890 324461 666610 24455 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze TYA 518:47-49 Asplund 1990; Tuovinen 1991
Age
Ölmos, Hammarsboda 5 666902 324410 666622 24403 Stray find Stone Age TYA 575:7-8 Asplund 1990; Tuovinen 1991 Myhrman 1990b
Ölmos, Hamnholmen 666523 324118 666244 24112 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Medieval

459
 Ölmos, Hamnholmen 666641 324111 666361 24104 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Heikkinen & Näränen 1992

460
Medieval
Ölmos, Hamnholmen 666518 324092 666238 24085 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Heikkinen & Näränen 1992
Medieval
Ölmos, Hamnholmssundet 666523 324266 666243 24259 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Högholmen 666327 324268 666047 24262 Labyrinth Undated Edgren 1985
Ölmos, Jungfruholmen 666394 324251 666114 24245 Fortification Post-Medieval Edgren 1985
Ölmos, Kammarbergen 667478 324494 667198 24487 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Kolaskär 667010 323998 666730 23991 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Tuovinen 1985
Medieval
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666363 324323 666083 24316 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1988 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666362 324323 666082 24316 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1988 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666337 324317 666057 24311 Cairn? Undated Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666338 324311 666058 24305 Inscription Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666341 324313 666061 24306 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Tuovinen 1988
Medieval
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666343 324317 666063 24310 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Tuovinen 1988
Medieval
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666353 324311 666073 24304 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Tuovinen 1988
Medieval
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666357 324310 666077 24304 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Tuovinen 1988
Medieval
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666359 324312 666079 24306 Stone oven Medieval or Post- Tuovinen 1988
Medieval
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666378 324329 666098 24322 Stone oven? Medieval or Post- Tuovinen 1988
Medieval
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666359 324331 666079 24325 Stone oven Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666355 324330 666076 24323 Stone oven Historical Period Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666355 324330 666076 24323 Stone oven Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666355 324330 666076 24323 Stone oven Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666351 324328 666071 24321 Stone oven Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666334 324334 666054 24328 Inscription Post-Medieval Asplund & Salomonsson 1985;
Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Krogarudden 666332 324326 666052 24319 Inscription Post-Medieval Asplund & Salomonsson 1985;
Edgren 1985
 Ölmos, Krogarudden 666332 324330 666053 24323 Harbour Medieval or Post- Dalsbruks Bruks- Asplund & Salomonsson 1985; Asplund 1996; Edgren 1996a
Medieval museum 2000-2002, Edgren 1985; Asplund 1996
2003:1-5, 2004-2008,
2009:1-4, 2010-2015,
2016:1-3, 2017, 2018:1-
3, 2019-2022, 2023:1-7,
2024-2026, 2027:1-7,
KM 30443, KM hist.
99006
Ölmos, Oxholmen 666322 324354 666042 24348 Inscription Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Oxholmen 666311 324355 666031 24349 Stone oven Medieval or Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Ölmos, Purunpää 666346 324351 666067 24345 Stray find Iron Age and/or Medieval SMM 96028 Edgren 1997
Ölmos, Sandbrinkarna Ia 667072 324549 666792 24542 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 472:1-9 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Ölmos, Sandbrinkarna Ib 667069 324550 666789 24543 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 472:10-19 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Ölmos, Sandbrinkarna II 667053 324538 666773 24532 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 472:20-23 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Ölmos, Sandbrinkarna III 667057 324542 666777 24535 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 472:24-30 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Ölmos, Sandbrinkarna IV 667059 324548 666779 24541 Settlement site Stone Age MES TYA 472:31-38 Asplund 1989 Myhrman 1990b
Ölmos, Skansholmen 666301 324275 666021 24268 Fortification Post-Medieval Edgren 1985
Ölmos, Stornäset ** 667389 324573 667109 24566 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Västerbergen 667293 324421 667013 24415 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Västersjälsmalmen 667195 324428 666914 24421 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Västersjälsmalmen 667201 324428 666920 24421 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 1 666520 324307 666240 24300 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 1 666517 324304 666237 24297 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 2 666473 324297 666193 24290 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 2 666473 324297 666193 24290 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 2 666473 324297 666193 24290 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 2 666474 324297 666194 24290 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 2 666474 324298 666194 24291 Cairn Iron Age? Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 2 666473 324297 666193 24290 Cairn Iron Age? Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ölmos, Östergård 2 ** 666480 324298 666200 24292 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Edgren 1985; Tuovinen 1991 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

461
462
Halikko
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 1896
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1897
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1898
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1899
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1900
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 1901
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 1902
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1904
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 1905
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1906
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1907
Stray find Iron Age Halikon kotis.museo 1908
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 1949
Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 302
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 304
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 305
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 306
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 307
Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 308
Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 309
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 310
Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 311
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 312
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 313
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 314
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 315
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 316
Stray find Stone Age BAT Halikon kotis.museo 317
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 318
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 319
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 321
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 322
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 3986
 Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 3989
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 3990
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 3991
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 3992
Stray find Iron Age Halikon kotis.museo 4
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 4002
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 4003
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 4672
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6584
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6585
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6586
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6587
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6590
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6594
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6595
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6596
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6597
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6598
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6599
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6602
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6603
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6604
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6605
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6606
Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 6607
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6608
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6611
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6612
Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6613
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6614
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6616
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6617
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6619
Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6620
Undefined Undated Halikon kotis.museo 70
Stray find Iron Age VA Halikon kotis.museo 854

463
 Stray find Iron Age Halikon kotis.museo 855

464
Stray find Iron Age VA Halikon kotis.museo 856
Stray find Historical Period Halikon kotis.museo 857
Stray find Historical Period Halikon kotis.museo 892a
Stray find? Stone Age Hämeen museo / Lindel-
lin kokoelma 96
Stray find Iron Age VA KM 10756:1
Stray find Stone Age KM 13744:2-7
Stray find? Iron Age KM 15752
Stray find Stone Age MES KM 20202
Stray find Iron Age KM 2025:17 Koskimies 1955
Stray find Stone Age KM 22805
Stray find Iron Age KM 26736
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2823:1
Stray find Undated KM 2823:2
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:11
Stray find Stone Age MES KM 3187:12
Stray find Stone Age MES KM 3187:13
Stray find Stone Age MES KM 3187:14
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:15
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:16
Stray find Stone Age? KM 3187:17
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:18
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:19
Stray find Iron Age KM 3696:2
Stray find Iron Age CP KM 5362:3
Stray find Iron Age KM 5492:2
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 5512:11-12
Stray find Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 5512:21
Stray find? Stone Age KM 5512:2-10
Stray find Iron Age KM 5512:22
Stray find Iron Age MIG KM 5512:23
Stray find Iron Age KM 5512:44-45
Stray find? Undated KM 5531:10
Stray find? Stone Age KM 5531:1-9
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 5721:1
 Stray find Stone Age KM 9218
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 12:1
Stray find Historical Period Pohjanmaan museo 3137
Stray find Stone Age TMM 127
Stray find Stone Age TMM 128
Stray find Stone Age TMM 137
Stray find Stone Age TMM 138
Stray find Stone Age TMM 139
Stray find Stone Age TMM 144
Stray find Stone Age TMM 145
Stray find Stone Age TMM 151
Stray find Stone Age TMM 152
Stray find Stone Age TMM 153
Stray find Stone Age TMM 154
Stray find Stone Age TMM 155
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 165
Stray find Stone Age TMM 167
Ammakko, Kotikulma Stray find Stone Age KM 12300
Ammakko, Kotikulma Stray find Historical Period KM 29605
Ammakko, Laihkoski Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6593
Ammakko, Laihkoski Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6610
Ammakko, Poukari Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:6
Ammakko, Puokari Stray find Stone Age KM 13746
Angela, Nokkala 669508 327553 669227 27545 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 19359
Angelan saari Undefined Undated KM 2435:3 Koskimies 1955
Böylä Stray find Stone Age KM 13744:1
Hajala 670751 327365 670469 27357 Stray find Stone Age KM 20428
Hajala Stray find Stone Age KM 26424
Hajala, Heiniluoma Stray find Stone Age KM 25606
Hajala, Kunnalliskoti 670759 327377 670478 27370 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 23326:1-2 Mikkola 1999
Hajala, Piintilä Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 6190:42
Hajala, Sarkola Stray find Stone Age TYA 136:1-2
Hakala Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 3982
Hakala Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 3983
Hakola Stray find Stone Age KM 9210
Hevonpää, Alatalon pelto 670292 327411 670011 27403 Settlement site Stone Age KM 31397 Mikkola 1999

465
 Hevonpää, Alitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6013:1-2

466
Hirvikallio Stray find Stone Age KM 12842
Hirvikallio Stray find Iron Age KM 14776:1
Hirvikallio, Heino 670476 328342 670195 28334 Undefined Historical Period? KM 25925:1-8 Riikonen 1990; Saloranta 1991;
Mikkola 1999
Hirvikallio, Kaijankallio 670427 328302 670145 28294 Undefined Undated Riikonen 2001
Hirvikallio, Kaijankallio 1 670422 328304 670140 28296 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone?
Hirvikallio, Kaijankallio 2 670424 328300 670142 28291 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone?
Hirvikallio, Kotimäki 1 670427 328291 670146 28282 Settlement site Iron Age KM 27788:1-19 (part of) Mikkola 1999
Hirvikallio, Kotimäki 1-3 * 670421 328285 670139 28277 Stray find Stone Age? KM 27788:1-19 (part of) Mikkola 1999
Hirvikallio, Kotimäki 2 670415 328280 670133 28272 Settlement site Iron Age KM 27788:1-19 (part of) Mikkola 1999
Hirvikallio, Kotimäki 3 670415 328290 670134 28282 Settlement site Iron Age KM 27788:1-19 (part of) Mikkola 1999
Hirvikallio, Lehtola Stray find Undated TYA 108
Hirvikallio, Mäkelä Stray find Iron Age? KM 27787
Hirvikallio, Rikala ** 670466 328344 670184 28336 Stray find Undated TYA 88:1-2 Seppänen 1975
Hirvikallio, Rikala 670403 328265 670122 28256 Hillfort Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 16750; TYA 157:1-2; Koskimies 1955; Voionmaa 1955;
Linnamäki TYA 817:1-40 Mikkola 1999; Asplund 2002;
Asplund 2007
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki 670441 328317 670160 28309 Stray find Iron Age CP KM 2058:3; KM 5512:46-47
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki 670452 328333 670171 28325 Stray find Historical Period TYA 106 Seppänen 1978
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki (3) * 670447 328322 670166 28313 Settlement site? Iron Age TYA 89:1-29; TYA 97:1-83; Seppänen 1976; Seppänen 1978;
TYA 105:1-39,41-42,44- Seppänen 1978; Mikkola 1999
47,116-118
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki (5) 670441 328326 670159 28318 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki (A) 670446 328319 670165 28310 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TYA 105:40,43 Seppänen 1978; Mikkola 1999 Hirviluoto 1992: 39-40
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki 670439 328323 670158 28315 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age PRIA TYA 105:48-115,119 Seppänen 1978; Mikkola 1999
(B) *
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki 670433 328314 670151 28306 Cemetery Iron Age MER TYA 105:120-307,309- Seppänen 1978; Mikkola 1999
(SW) * 314,316-378; KM
24857:1-4
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki 670433 328314 670151 28306 Settlement site? Early Metal Period PRIA TYA 105:308,315 Seppänen 1978
(SW) *
Hirvikallio, Rikalanmäki 670454 328324 670172 28316 Cemetery Iron Age CP KM 12033; KM 12549:1- Koskimies 1955; Leppäaho 1955; Hirviluoto 1992: 82-127;
(Tuominen) 73; KM 12690:1-483; Mikkola 1999 Mäntylä 2005a; Mäntylä
KM 12841:1-90; KM 2006; Mäntylä 2007
13298:1-154
 Hirvikallio, Torkkelin pelto 670394 328244 670113 28236 Stray find Iron Age KM 31034:1-6 Mikkola 1998; Mikkola 1999;
Strandberg 2000
Hulvela, Hakala 670516 327416 670235 27409 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 13889
Hulvela, Pitkäporras Stray find Stone and/or Bronze KM 4113
Age
Hyyperä, Kallela Stray find Stone Age KM 13747
Hyypperä, Moisio Stray find Stone Age KM 8905:12
Ikelä Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 739
Ikelä, Kuuka Stray find Stone Age KM 29819
Ikelä, Markkula 670437 327972 670155 27964 Stray find Stone Age KM 20974
Ikelä, Markula Stray find Stone Age KM 23219:1-2
Immola, Haapalahti Stray find Undated KM 10126:1
Joensuu Stray find Stone Age KM 6037:5
Joensuu Stray find Iron Age ERA KM 7059 Salo 1968: 85; Schauman-
­Lönnqvist 1989: 90
Joensuu, Halikonjoki 670473 328383 670192 28375 Settlement site Iron Age KM 25043:1-60; KM Saloranta 1989; Poutiainen 1990;
25352:1-11; KM 25924:1-23 Saloranta 1991: Mikkola 1999
Joensuu, Joensuun kartano Stray find Iron Age? KM 7019
Joensuu, Joensuun kartano Stray find Iron Age? KM 7570 Koskimies 1955
Jokisato Stray find Historical Period Halikon kotis.museo 323
Juva, Lähteenmäki Stray find Undated KM 17613
Kalmusnäs 669250 327427 668969 27419 Stone oven? Historical Period? Riikonen 1988
Kalmusnäs 669250 327411 668969 27403 Stone oven? Historical Period? Riikonen 1988
Kalmusnäs 669250 327411 668969 27403 Stone oven? Historical Period? Riikonen 1988
Kalmusnäs, Sapalahti Stray find Stone Age? KM 3883
Kanamäki Stray find Stone Age KM 2722:2
Kanamäki, Mustanummi Settlement site? Stone Age? Koskimies 1955
Kaninkola Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 3994
Kaninkola, Hiisimäki 670108 327934 669827 27926 Stray find Iron Age MIG KM 10549:2 Mikkola 1999
Kaninkola, Hiisimäki 670108 327934 669827 27926 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 1842:1-3; KM 22493:1- Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
8; KM 23608:1-94
Kaninkola, Hiisimäki 670110 327941 669828 27933 Stray find Iron Age MER KM 27991 Mikkola 1999
Kaninkola, Immala ** 670062 327949 669781 27941 Stray find Iron Age VA, CP KM 10549:1 Koskimies 1955
Kaninkola, Immala ** 670053 327946 669772 27938 Stray find Iron Age KM 9276:6 Koskimies 1955
Kankareenjärvi 670929 327815 670647 27807 Pollen sample Tolonen 1985a; Tolonen
site 1987b
Kankarpyöli Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 6759:1-2

467
Karviainen, Lammasmäki 669778 327690 669496 27682 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Kaxunge, Hakoniitty 669017 327518 668736 27510 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

468
Kaxunge, Hakoniitty 669012 327515 668731 27507 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ketola Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 23615:1-2
Ketunpesänahde Stray find Iron Age VA KM 12543
Kierilä, Kulmala Stray find Stone Age KM 13226:1-2
Kihisten kylä, Saarinen Stray find Stone Age KM 6687
Kirjola, Ylöstupa Stray find Stone Age BAT Halikon kotis.museo 4674
Kirkonkylä, Kirkkomäki * 670519 328370 670237 28362 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 2058:4-6; KM 3187:45- Koskimies 1955; Katiskoski 1983; Kehusmaa & Raike 2004
46; KM 5512:24-26; KM Mikkola 1999; Raike 2004
34020:1-350; TYA 107
Kokkila, Keskitalo 669678 327610 669397 27602 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kokkila, Keskitalo 669684 327613 669403 27605 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kokkila, Tammenpää 669649 327564 669368 27556 Undefined pit Undated Koskimies 1955
site
Kokkila, Tammenpää (2) 669649 327564 669368 27556 Cairn Iron Age VA, CP KM 2435:4-9 Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999 Hirviluoto 1992: 68
Kokkila, Tammenpää (3) 669649 327564 669368 27556 Cairn Iron Age? KM 2435:10 Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Konkola, Aro 670701 327310 670420 27302 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16748:1-14; KM Mikkola 1999
23323:1-23; KM 26423:1-2;
TYA 109:1-24
Konkola, Ilola Alapelto 670747 327283 670465 27275 Settlement site Stone Age KM 13264:1-8; KM Mikkola 1999
23320:1-26; KM 26422
Konkola, Ilola Välipelto Stray find Undated KM 23327:1-4
Konkola, Ilola Yläpelto 670744 327261 670462 27254 Settlement site Stone Age KM 13264:1-8; KM Mikkola 1999
23321:1-4
Kultola, Katunpää 670669 327892 670387 27884 Stray find Iron Age CP KM 15676; KM 15895 Hirviluoto 1966; Mikkola 1999
Kultola, Takala/Hannula * 670834 327495 670552 27487 Stray find Stone Age KM 26737:1-3 Mikkola 1999
Kumio, Hakala Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:6
Kumio, Mäenrinne Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6601
Kumio, Pikkamäki Stray find Undated Perttelin museo
Kumio, Pikkumäki Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 1903
Kumio, Ristimäki Stray find Stone Age MES Halikon kotis.museo 737
Kumio, Saari Stray find Stone Age KM 10709
Kumio, Tapani Stray find Historical Period? Halikon kotis.museo 3987
Kutela, Tapani 671706 327416 671424 27408 Stray find Undated KM 20972
Kuttila, Koivikko Stray find Stone Age KM 17837
Kuttila, Puntamäki Stray find Stone Age? KM 17609
Kuttila, Tapani 671706 327417 671424 27409 Stray find? Stone Age Mikkola 1999
Kuttila, Vuorela Stray find Stone Age KM 17607 Sarvas 1968
 Kytö, Isokankareenmäki 671379 327332 671097 27325 Stray find Stone Age KM 20973
Kytö, Lisälehtola Stray find Stone Age KM 17610 Sarvas 1968
Kytö, Varvikko 670701 327310 670420 27302 Stray find Stone Age KM 16749
Lautela Stray find Stone Age? Halikon kotis.museo 3984
Lempilä 670187 327977 669906 27969 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lempolanmäki S ** 670436 328270 670154 28261 Settlement site? Iron Age and/or KM 31029:1-15; KM Mikkola 1998; Mikkola 1999;
Medieval 31609:1-88 Strandberg 2000
Linnamaa, Mätikkö Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6589
Meisala 669954 328078 669673 28070 Cup-marked Iron Age? Leppäaho 1952; Koskimies 1955;
stone Mikkola 1999
Meisala, Haukkamäki 669965 328030 669684 28022 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Meisala, Haukkamäki 669964 328031 669683 28023 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Meisala, Haukkamäki 669965 328031 669684 28023 Stray find Iron Age KM 10756:2 Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Meisala, Lehtiniemi ** 669985 328128 669704 28120 Stray find Undated KM 14776:2
Meisala, Soikvuori S 670009 328078 669728 28070 Clearance cairn Historical Period? Mikkola 1999
Meisala, Soikvuori S 670009 328078 669728 28070 Stray find Undated KM 31399 Mikkola 1999
Melkola 671312 327967 671030 27959 Settlement site Stone Age MES KM 12734:1-2; KM 13748; Koskimies 1955; Sarvas 1968;
KM 14274; KM 17798, Mikkola 1999
KM 18137:1-4; KM
31408:1-
Melkola Stray find Undated KM 26332
Melkola, Flakumäki Stray find Stone Age KM 17611 Sarvas 1968
Mikkola, Keala Stray find Stone Age KM 18004
Muntola Stray find? Stone Age Hellstenin kokoelma
Muntola Stray find? Stone Age Hellstenin kokoelma
Muntola Stray find Stone Age KM 17797
Muntola Stray find Stone Age TMM 8096
Muntola, Isoriihenmäki 670646 327770 670365 27762 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 13790:1-2; KM Koskimies 1955; Sarvas 1968;
17705:1-575; KM 17796; Sarvas 1969; Mikkola 1999
KM 17910:1-582; KM
18837:1-1161; TMM 8095
Muntola, Isoriihenmäki 670646 327770 670365 27762 Stray find Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 17909 Mikkola 1999
Muntola, Isoriihenmäki 670639 327759 670357 27751 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
(Montola) stone
Mustamäki 670460 328211 670178 28203 Stray find Iron Age Halikon kotis.museo 324
Mustamäki 670460 328211 670178 28203 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 5512:27-43; KM Koskimies 1955; Sarvas 1968; Hirviluoto 1992: 71-73
5721:2-3; KM 6378:2; Mikkola 1999
Perniön museo 2171-2174
Mustamäki, Suutarin tontti 670454 328205 670173 28197 Undefined Historical Period? Seppänen 1977

469
 Märy Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:5

470
Märy Stray find Stone Age KM 9684:2
Märy, Ala-Häävälän Lin- 671022 328087 670741 28079 Hillfort? Iron Age? Mikkola 1999 Appelgren 1891: 65
namäki
Märy, Ali-Satuli 670783 328103 670502 28094 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 29604:1-2 Mikkola 1999
Märy, Asumettä 670801 328325 670520 28317 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 25382:1-3 Mikkola 1999
Märy, Kaakanmäki 670885 328120 670603 28112 Undefined Undated Mikkola 1999 Hirviluoto 1992: 80, 144
Märy, Kaakanmäki 670886 328126 670605 28118 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 25378:1-2 Mikkola 1999
Märy, Krapuoja 670824 328149 670543 28140 Settlement site Iron Age KM 25380:1-4; KM Mikkola 1995; Mikkola 1999
28387:1-122; KM 28827;
KM 31404
Märy, Munismäki 670815 328128 670534 28120 Settlement site Iron Age VA KM 25381:1-4; KM Mikkola 1994; Mikkola 1996;
28388:1-7; KM 28826; KM Mikkola 1999
29603:1
Märy, Munismäki S 670812 328125 670531 28117 Cup-marked Iron Age? Hirviluoto 1991; Mikkola 1999 Hirviluoto 1992: 80, 143
stone
Märy, Myllyoja 670827 328190 670546 28182 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Märy, Pihko 670875 328118 670593 28110 Settlement site? Iron Age and/or KM 31843:1-4; KM Mäntylä 2004
Medieval 34664:1
Märy, Pihko (1) 670875 328119 670593 28111 Cup-marked Iron Age? Hirviluoto 1998; Mikkola 1999
stone
Märy, Pihko (2) 670875 328117 670593 28109 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Märy, Riihikankare 670763 328153 670481 28145 Settlement site Iron Age KM 25379:1-3; KM Mikkola 1995; Mikkola 1996;
28386:1-781; KM 28825:1- Mikkola 1999
1197; KM 29602:1-7; KM
31403
Märy, Riihikankare (Ali- 670763 328153 670481 28145 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 12540 Mikkola 1999
Satuli)
Märy, Riihikankare (Satuli) 670763 328153 670481 28145 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Märy, Sairaala Stray find Stone Age KM 13196:1
Märy, Sairaala Stray find Stone Age KM 13196:2
Märy, Sairaala 670912 328203 670630 28194 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 20975:1-2 Mikkola 1999
Märy, Seppälä Stray find Stone Age KM 6704:1-3
Märy, Seppälä Stray find Stone Age KM 9684:1
Märy, Sikamäki 671011 328072 670729 28064 Settlement site? Stone Age? KM 25317 Mikkola 1999
Märy, Somerojan lähde 671303 328528 671021 28520 Holy well Historical Period? Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Märy, Yli-Heikkilä Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6618
 Mätikkö Stray find Stone Age KM 6013:3
Naapala, Kaitaniitty Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 735
Naapala, Ojanperä Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 13001
Nummi, Kettuojan pelto 670946 328340 670664 28332 Settlement site? Stone Age? KM 31405:1 Mikkola 1999
Nummi, Märyn risteys * 670918 328256 670636 28248 Settlement site? Stone Age? Mikkola 1999 Hirviluoto 1992: 135
Nummi, Sikaoja 670962 328347 670680 28339 Undefined pit Undated Mikkola 1999
site
Nummi, Urheilutie 15 670933 328283 670652 28275 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 21713:1-8; KM Mikkola 1999 Hirviluoto 1992: 33-37
22008:1-249
Nummisten kylä, Kankare Stray find Stone Age KM 6713:1-2
Padanoja Stray find Stone Age KM 6561:3-4
Pailinna Stray find Stone Age KM 6744:1
Pailinna Stray find Stone Age KM 6744:2
Pailinnan koski Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 12709
Paimion yhteismetsä 671284 327499 671002 27492 Cairn? Undated Brusila 2006
Paimoinen Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Halikon kotis.museo 738
Age
Pappila, Ahola 670757 327254 670475 27246 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 23322:1-13 Mikkola 1999
Pappila, Portaanpää 670773 327284 670491 27276 Settlement site Stone Age KM 23325:1-5; KM Mikkola 1999
31398:1
Pappila, Vuohikallio 670713 328499 670432 28491 Settlement site Stone Age MES, KM 10673; KM 28978:1- Mikkola 1999
BAT 29; KM 29607:1-6;
KM 29734:1-420; KM
30639:1-594
Pappila, Väljälä 670749 327306 670467 27298 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 23324:1-7 Mikkola 1999
Peksala Stray find Stone Age Juho Wiinamäen museo
Salossa 205
Perälä Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6609
Perälä Stray find Stone Age Sauvon Korpelan kansa­
koulu
Piintilä Stray find Stone Age KM 2025:4
Piintilä, Piintilän Linnamäki 670836 327678 670554 27670 Hillfort? Undated Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Piintilä, Ratsumiehen hauta 671203 327696 670921 27688 Undefined Undated Koskimies 1955 Hirviluoto 1992: 142
Pitkäoja, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age TYA 204
Pitkäoja, Koivusilta Stray find Stone Age MES KM 17608 Sarvas 1968
Pitkäoja, Perttala Stray find Stone Age MES KM 7395
Puotila, Kannikon makasiini 670592 328253 670311 28245 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 31032:1 Mikkola 1998; Mikkola 1999;
Strandberg 2000

471
 Puotila, Kannikon makasiini 670592 328253 670311 28245 Settlement site? Iron Age? KM 31032:2; KM Mikkola 1998; Mikkola 1999;

472
31612:1-3 Strandberg 2001
Puotila, Kihinen (Kihisten- 670480 328298 670198 28290 Settlement site Iron Age KM 25042:1-50; KM Saloranta 1989; Poutiainen 1990;
mäki S) 25351:1-6; KM 25923:1-717 Saloranta 1991; Mikkola 1999
Puotila, Kihinen (Kihisten- 670480 328298 670198 28290 Settlement site Iron Age KM 31030:1-2; KM Mikkola 1998; Mikkola 1999;
mäki SW) 31610:1-40 Strandberg 2000
Puotila, Kihinen (Mäkelä) 670488 328283 670206 28275 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Puotila, Kihistenmäki ** 670504 328294 670223 28286 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 12692:1-2
Puotila, Kihistenmäki Stray find Iron Age VA KM 26591 Mikkola 1999
Puotila, Mörlingin pelto * 670510 328266 670228 28258 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 31031:1-14; KM Mikkola 1998; Mikkola 1999;
31611:1-19 Strandberg 2000
Puotila, Puotila (Sydänpelto) 670522 328310 670240 28302 Settlement site Iron Age KM 30874:1-7; KM 31288; Mikkola 1999; Brusila 2002
KM 31814:1-19; KM
31842:1-7; KM 33463:1-6;
KM 33568:1-3
Puotila, Puotila (Tavasti 1) 670517 328312 670236 28304 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Puotila, Puotila (Tavasti 2) 670522 328306 670240 28298 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Puotila, Puotila (Tavasti 3) 670515 328310 670233 28301 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Puotila, Puotila (Tavasti 3) 670512 328314 670231 28305 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Puotila, Virtalahti 670557 328186 670276 28178 Stray find Stone Age? KM 13335:1-2 Mikkola 1999
Puotila, Virtalahti 670557 328186 670276 28178 Stray find Historical Period? KM 14365:1-2 Mikkola 1999
Puotila, Wuorenrinta * 670496 328278 670215 28270 Cemetery? Iron Age VA, CP KM 30985:1-18; KM Mikkola 1999; Mikkola 2000; Mikkola 1999
31815:1-89; KM 34268:1-25 Vanhatalo 2006
Putolankylä, Rautio Stray find Stone Age KM 20867:1-4
Pyhäloukas, Kinnarpyöli 670438 327295 670156 27287 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pyhäloukas, Kinnarpyöli 670438 327295 670156 27287 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pyhäloukas, Seppälä Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 909
Pöylä, Pöylän Linnanmäki 670273 327162 669992 27154 Hillfort Iron Age and/or Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Medieval
Ruotsala, Mäkilä Stray find Stone Age KM 13745
Ruska, Prookeli 670484 327472 670202 27464 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ruuhikoski, Sepänahde Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:4
Ruuhikoski, Seppä Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:7
Saarimäki Stray find Iron Age VA KM 12492
Saha, Mäkipää ** 671565 327390 671283 27382 Stray find Iron Age? KM 12807
 Salainen, Aaltonen 670812 328586 670531 28577 Stray find Stone Age KM 21303
Sauvo Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:5
Sauvo, Pyykankare Undefined Undated KM 13749
Sauvonkylä, Koskenpää Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:8
Sauvonkylä, Kupparinmäki 671581 327727 671299 27719 Settlement site? Stone Age? KM 31407:1 Mikkola 1999
Sauvonkylä, Martinoja Kivilä 671549 327571 671267 27563 Settlement site? Stone Age MES KM 31406; Halikon kotis. Mikkola 1999
museo 3985
Sauvonkylä, Pyykankare 671658 327665 671376 27657 Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:2-4 Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Seppälä Stray find Stone Age KM 2803:2
Suomela Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 3988
Talola, Kaikumäki 670589 327592 670308 27584 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 9389:1-28; KM Mikkola 1999
9510:1-8; KM 10329:1-2;
Halikon kotis.museo 740;
Perttelin museo
Tavola Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6592
Tavola, Ketola Stray find Stone Age MES KM 17612
Tavola, Toivonen Stray find Stone Age KM 9207:1-2
Toijala, Paijola Stray find Undated KM 6014A
Toijala, Santa Stray find Stone Age KM 10785; KM 11525
Toijala, Toijalanmäki ** 670504 328464 670223 28456 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 12691 Leppäaho 1952; Koskimies 1955
Toppjoki Stray find Stone Age KM 2722:1
Torkkila, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 4671
Torkkila, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6591
Valttila, Isomäki 669746 327675 669465 27667 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vartsala Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6615
Vartsala, Mäenala Stray find Iron Age? MER, VA Halikon kotis.museo 1080
Vaskio Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 125
Vaskio Stray find Stone Age MES Perniön museo 129
Vaskio, Kuntela Stray find Iron Age CP KM 26077 Hirviluoto 1992: 118
Vaskio, Latala Stray find Stone Age KM 12826
Vaskio, Onnenperä Stray find Undated Halikon kotis.museo 6600
Vaskio, Osuusmeijeri Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 122
Vaskio, Syrjälä Stray find Stone Age MES KM 3684:1
Vaskio, Vaskion Saha Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 736
Vessilä, Pailinna 670534 327946 670253 27938 Hillfort? Undated Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Viurila Stray find Iron Age VA Halikon kotis.museo 326
Viurila Stray find? Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 327

473
 Viurila Stray find? Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 328

474
Viurila Stray find? Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 329
Viurila Stray find? Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 330
Viurila Stray find? Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 331
Viurila Stray find? Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 332
Viurila Stray find? Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 333
Viurila Stray find Stone Age KM 8789:3
Viurila, Iilike ** 670305 328348 670024 28340 Stray find Iron Age KM 10556 Koskimies 1955
Viurila, Kaunelan palsta 670292 328344 670010 28335 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Viurila, Kaunelan palsta 670290 328338 670008 28329 Cemetery Iron Age MER, VA KM 11821:1-3 Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999
Viurila, Sikomäki 670245 328240 669964 28232 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Viurila, Sikomäki 670244 328240 669963 28232 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vuorentaka, Vankkurimäki 670085 328224 669803 28216 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1955; Mikkola 1999 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vähätalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6561:1-2
Ylihäävälä Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 6588
Yttelä, Haavisto-Heikki 670726 328273 670444 28265 Settlement site Historical Period Mikkola 1999
Yttelä, Lampola 2 670720 328211 670439 28203 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Yttelä, Lampola 2 670711 328221 670429 28213 Settlement site Iron Age KM 3316:17; KM 31401 Mikkola 1999
Yttelä, Lampola 3 670711 328237 670430 28228 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Yttelä, Lampola 3 670713 328235 670432 28226 Settlement site? Undated KM 25383:1-2; KM Mikkola 1999
31402:1
Yttelä, Lampola 4 670687 328239 670405 28231 Cup-marked Iron Age? Mikkola 1999
stone
Yttelä, Lampola Pajapelto 670723 328205 670441 28197 Cemetery? Iron Age VA, CP KM 2811:1-2; KM Appelgren 1896; Koskimies 1955;
3316:13-14; KM 29606; Mikkola 1999
KM 31400
Yttelä, Mattila (Ketun- 670659 328289 670377 28281 Undefined Undated KM 31033:1-9; KM Mikkola 1998; Mikkola 1999;
pesänahde) * 31613:1-9 Strandberg 2000
 Kemiö
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Stone Age KM 1754:3
Stray find Stone Age KM 19232:8
Stray find Stone Age KM 2503:A12
Stray find Stone Age KM 5512:16
Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 800
Stray find Stone Age KM 9281
Stray find Bronze Age LBA Sagalundin museo Tallgren 1906
1001. KM 10816 (copy)
Berga 668614 326991 668334 26983 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Berga, Vestergård Cup-marked stone? Iron Age
Bogsböle 668220 325839 667939 25832 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 610:1-6 Asplund 1994
Bogsböle, Granmossakulla ** 668215 325961 667934 25954 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Branten 667121 326633 666841 26625 Settlement site Stone Age LNE/EBA TYA 520:1-4, TYA Asplund 1992
589:1-37
Båtkulla 668019 326644 667739 26636 Stray find Undated KM 23041:1-3
Båtkulla, Båtkullaberget 667964 326700 667683 26693 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Dalkarby, Nyhem Stray find Undated KM 25793
Elmdal, Kummelberget 667845 327012 667565 27005 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Elmdal, Kummelberget 667843 327012 667563 27004 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Elmdal, Kummelberget 667864 327013 667584 27005 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Elmdal, Kummelberget 667861 327014 667581 27006 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Elmdal, Kummelberget 667863 327014 667583 27006 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Elmdal, Långholmen 667896 327060 667616 27052 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Elmdal, Östergård Stray find Stone Age KM 14899
Engelsby 668121 326204 667841 26197 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Engelsby Stray find Stone Age KM 7098
Engelsby, Brudbergen 667912 326240 667632 26233 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Engelsby, Brudbergen 667918 326270 667638 26263 Stray find Stone Age TYA 579:1 Asplund 1990
Fröjböle 667798 325705 667518 25698 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Fröjböle, Storhagan 667797 325704 667516 25697 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Gesterby, Johannelund Stray find Bronze Age KM 14652
Gästerby 668474 326299 668193 26291 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Gästerby 668440 326254 668159 26247 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Gästerby Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 5512:11-12

475
 Gästerby, Berghäll 668496 326265 668216 26257 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Asplund 1996

476
Gästerby, Skrinnanberget 668474 326300 668193 26292 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Gästerby, Smisskullen 668568 326346 668287 26339 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Gästerby, Smisskullen ** 668568 326346 668287 26339 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Helgeboda 668485 325338 668205 25331 Stray find Iron Age KM 30444 Asplund 1997b: 262
Hulta, Hulta A 668508 326005 668227 25997 Stray find Stone Age TYA 609:1-2 Asplund 1994
Hulta, Hulta B 668499 325979 668218 25972 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 609:3-4 Asplund 1994
Högmo, Mellangård 667555 325626 667274 25619 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 479:1-4 Asplund 1989
Kalkila Stray find Stone Age KM 8837
Kalkila 668488 326740 668207 26732 Village Medieval or Post- TYA 524:1-14 Asplund 1994
­Medieval
Kalkila, Smisskullen 668514 326727 668234 26720 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kalkila, Smisskullen 668514 326722 668234 26715 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kila Stray find Stone Age KM 26076
Kila ** 668810 327190 668529 27183 Stray find? Iron Age VA KM 7011 Asplund & Vuorela 1989;
Asplund 1997b
Kila, Tegelgård Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 25340
Kyrkbyn, Länsmansbergen 667969 326456 667688 26449 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kyrkbyn, Länsmansbergen 667970 326455 667689 26448 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kåddböle ** 667519 325739 667239 25732 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kåddböle 667515 325647 667234 25640 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kåddböle 667515 325646 667234 25639 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kåddböle 667457 325746 667177 25738 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kåddböle, Kilskullan ** 667428 325625 667148 25618 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kåddböle, Kilskullan ** 667428 325625 667148 25618 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Labböle, Labböleträsket 667146 326227 666865 26220 Pollen sample site
Lappdal, Telegrafberget 668798 326413 668517 26405 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Linnarnäs 667651 326987 667371 26980 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Linnarnäs, Rågholm 667627 327174 667346 27166 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Långvik, Norrlångvik 668008 325887 667727 25880 Stray find Stone Age KM 23040
Löfböle, Vestergård 667835 325306 667554 25299 Stray find Stone Age TYA 519:1-3 Asplund 1991
Lövböle Stray find Stone Age? KM 27021
Makila 668138 326080 667857 26073 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Makila 668187 326071 667907 26064 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Makila * 668234 326227 667953 26219 Village Medieval or Post-­Medieval TYA 645:1-10 Asplund 1998
Makila, Gärdorna 668152 326064 667871 26056 Pollen sample site
 Makila, Majberget 668224 326155 667943 26148 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Makila, Majberget 668222 326164 667941 26156 Tomtning Undated Asplund & Saarinen 1998;
Asplund 2002
Makila, Majberget 1 668225 326201 667944 26194 Cairn Iron Age VA TYA 645:11-12 Asplund & Saarinen 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Makila, Majberget 2 668224 326197 667943 26190 Cairn Iron Age TYA 787:1-8 Asplund 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Makila, Majberget 3 668227 326196 667946 26189 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Makila, Östergård 668148 326208 667868 26200 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Asplund 1992 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Makila, Östergård * 668151 326208 667870 26201 Settlement site Early Metal Period PRIA TYA 522:1-6, TYA Asplund 1992
578:1-16
Makila, Östergård 668135 326196 667854 26189 Settlement site Early Metal Period TYA 545, TYA 550, TYA Asplund 1992; Tuovinen 1992
794:1
Mattkärr 667678 325829 667397 25822 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mattkärr 667678 325828 667397 25821 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mattkärr 667678 325826 667397 25819 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mattkärr, Landäng Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 10925
Mattkärr, Mattkärrmalm 667684 325844 667404 25837 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nordvik, Verkholm 668080 325171 667800 25164 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nordvik, Verkholm 668079 325169 667799 25162 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pajböle, Österkulla ** 667818 326424 667537 26417 Stray find Stone Age KM 27020
Pederså Stray find Stone Age KM 13935
Pederså Stray find Stone Age KM 17625
Pederså, Falla Stray find Stone Age KM 10504
Pedersjö, Lillgård 667514 326524 667234 26517 Stray find Stone Age TYA 521:1 Asplund 1991
Påvalsby 667885 326015 667604 26008 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Påvalsby 667886 326015 667605 26008 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Påvalsby 667881 326018 667601 26011 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Påvalsby 667850 325981 667570 25974 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Påvalsby 667843 325955 667563 25948 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Påvalsby, Ackokullan 667782 326014 667502 26006 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rugnola 668576 326827 668295 26820 Village Medieval or Post- TYA 523:1-3 Asplund 1994
­Medieval
Rugnola, Ilsokärret 668575 326745 668295 26737 Pollen sample site Asplund & Vuorela 1989
Sjölax 667822 327025 667541 27018 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sjölax, Björnholm 667800 327092 667520 27085 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sjölax, Kummelberget 667810 327036 667530 27028 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sjölax, Kummelberget 667810 327035 667530 27027 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sjölax, Kummelberget 667811 327033 667531 27025 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

477
 Skålböle ** 668154 325528 667874 25521 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

478
Smedsböle, Smedsböle 1 667500 325808 667220 25800 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 650:1-6
Smedsböle, Smedsböle 2 667454 325759 667174 25752 Charcoal Historical Period
burning or tar
extraction site
Smedsböle, Smedsböle 2 667452 325761 667172 25754 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 651:1-3
Stenmo, Västerbacka Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 14538
Stenmo, Vesterbacka 667678 326271 667397 26264 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 19232:7
Söderlångvik Stray find Stone Age KM 1228
Tavastrona 668721 326952 668441 26944 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tavastrona, Östergård 668785 327029 668504 27021 Stray find Stone Age CC KM 21159
Tjuda 668449 326267 668168 26260 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tjuda 668374 326170 668094 26163 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tjuda 668373 326170 668093 26163 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tjuda Stray find Stone Age
Tjuda Stray find Undated
Tjuda Stray find Undated
Tjuda 668455 326260 668175 26252 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2503A:19 or 20 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tjuda 668456 326262 668176 26254 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2503A:19 or 20 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tjuda, Tjuda Klobben 668345 326275 668064 26267 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tjuda, Tjuda Klobben ** 668345 326275 668064 26267 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tolvsnäs, Iso-Humu 668154 325019 667873 25012 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Torsböle Stray find Stone Age KM 5448:1
Trotby 668457 326499 668176 26492 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Träskböle, Svartträsket ** 668643 326452 668362 26444 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Träskböle, Svartträsket 668663 326481 668382 26473 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Träskböle, Svartträsket 668659 326481 668378 26474 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Träskböle, Svartträsket 668655 326483 668374 26476 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Träskböle, Österängsberget 668535 326453 668254 26445 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Träskböle, Österängsberget 668538 326453 668257 26445 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vestlax 666993 326284 666713 26277 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vestlax, Vestergård Stray find Stone Age KM 25338
Viksgård ** 668722 326480 668441 26473 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Viksgård ** 668722 326480 668441 26473 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age
Viksgård ** 668742 326476 668461 26469 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Viksgård 668810 326456 668529 26449 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Viksgård 668813 326450 668533 26443 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Viksgård 668696 326499 668415 26492 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Viksvidja Stray find Undated KM 20574
Viksvidja, Mossdalen 668204 326721 667924 26714 Pollen sample site Asplund & Vuorela 1989
Villkärr Stray find Stone Age KM 2503A:12
Vreta ** 667961 326145 667680 26138 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta 667924 326052 667643 26045 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta 667925 326056 667644 26049 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta 667930 326101 667649 26093 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta, Jättekastberget 667903 326132 667623 26125 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta, Jättekastberget 667898 326134 667618 26127 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta, Jättekastberget 667900 326133 667620 26126 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2503A:18 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta, Mörkdalsberget 667894 326029 667613 26022 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta, Mörkdalsberget 667903 326039 667623 26032 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta, Mörkdalsberget 667903 326040 667623 26033 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vreta, Teglars Stray find Stone Age KM 14653
Västermark 667281 326203 667001 26196 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Västermark ** 667282 326201 667002 26194 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Västermark ** 667327 326196 667047 26189 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östermark 667464 326286 667183 26278 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östermark ** 667453 326265 667173 26258 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östermark 667442 326257 667162 26249 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östermark 667430 326238 667149 26231 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östermark 667452 326293 667172 26286 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östermark Stray find Stone Age KM 15100
Östermark 667450 326307 667169 26300 Stray find Stone Age KM 19232:1-4
Östermark 667456 326332 667176 26324 Stray find Stone Age KM 19232:5
Östermark 667431 326270 667151 26263 Stray find Stone Age KM 19232:6
Östermark Stray find Stone Age KM 20573
Östermark, Nedergård Stray find Stone Age KM 19747:1-3
Östermark, Nedergård 667448 326300 667168 26293 Settlement site Stone Age LNE/ TYA 261:1-4, TYA 274:1- Asplund 1985; Asplund 1985;
EBA 17, TYA 326:1-4, TYA Asplund 1987
368:1-2, TYA 415
Östermark, Österbacka Stray find Stone Age KM 12702
Östermark, Österbacka 667390 326373 667110 26365 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 480:1-2 Asplund 1989

479
480
Kuusjoki
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Historical Period KM 3187:56
Stray find Stone Age KM 6378:1
Hämäläinen, Ali-Härri 671971 329423 671689 29414 Holy well Historical Period Laakso 1997
Impola Stray find Historical Period KM 3187:33
Impola, Katinhännänoja 671789 328910 671507 28901 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 30673 Laakso 1997
Impola, Nummila 671701 328800 671419 28792 Stray find Stone Age KM 19099 Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Kanunki, Matasvuori 671908 330014 671626 30005 Cairn Undated Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Kurkela, Kirkonmäki 671831 329255 671548 29246 Cairn Undated Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Kurkela, Kivimäki 671712 329312 671430 29303 Cairn? Post-Medieval Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Kurkela, Murronaukea * 671661 329215 671379 29207 Stray find Stone Age KM 30672 Laakso 1997
Kuttila, Korvenoja 672048 329683 671766 29674 Holy well Historical Period Laakso 1997
Kuusjoenperä Stray find Historical Period KM 3087
Kuusjoenperä, Mäenalusta Stray find Stone Age HM 1238:44-45 Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Nummenjärvi Boat find Undated Laakso 1997 Oja 1961
Pappila, Kylänpää 671868 329209 671586 29200 Pit-trap Post-Medieval Laakso 1997
Pappila, Lautkoski 672231 329205 671949 29197 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Kuusjoen Ylikulman Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Age koulun kokoelmat
Pappila, Puromäki 672078 329239 671795 29231 Charcoal Historical Period Laakso 1997
burning or tar
extraction site
Raatala Stray find Stone Age Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Raatala, Jaakkola Stray find Undated TYA 110
Raatala, Kaupinlinna 672298 328777 672016 28768 Settlement site Medieval? Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Raatala, Kulmala 671974 329087 671692 29079 Cairn Undated Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Raatala, Linnamäki 671873 328867 671591 28859 Hillfort? Undated Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Raatala, Rajakankare 672428 328627 672146 28619 Charcoal Historical Period Laakso 1997
burning or tar
extraction site
Skraatarla, Yli-Jama Stray find Stone Age KM 2823:3
Tiskarla, Kauriala 671936 329612 671654 29604 Cairn Undated Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Tiskarla, Korpivaara 672279 329302 671997 29293 Pit-trap Historical Period Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Tiskarla, Ojaranta 672287 329284 672005 29275 Pit-trap Undated Laakso 1997
Tiskarla, Rauharanta 672055 329426 671773 29417 Pit-trap Historical Period Sarvas 1974; Laakso 1997
Vähäjärvi Boat find Undated Laakso 1997 Oja 1961
 Muurla
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
670285 329241 670003 29232 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669604 329772 669323 29763 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669608 329771 669327 29762 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669599 329774 669318 29766 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669600 329776 669319 29768 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669603 329777 669322 29768 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669599 329777 669318 29769 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669600 329777 669319 29769 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669599 329782 669318 29774 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669599 329783 669318 29775 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669691 329775 669409 29767 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669673 329809 669392 29800 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669523 329831 669242 29822 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669533 329813 669251 29805 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar

481
extraction site
 669557 329740 669276 29732 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003

482
burning or tar
extraction site
669548 329746 669267 29737 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
669536 329721 669255 29713 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
Stray find Stone Age Kirkonkylän kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Stray find Stone Age MES Kirkonkylän kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Stray find Stone Age BAT Kirkonkylän kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Stray find Undated Kirkonkylän kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Stray find Stone Age MES Pirkkalan kirkonpiirin Huurre 1965
kansakoulu
Stray find Stone Age Pirkkalan kirkonpiirin Huurre 1965
kansakoulu
Stray find Stone Age Pirkkalan kirkonpiirin Huurre 1965
kansakoulu
Stray find Stone Age Pirkkalan kirkonpiirin Huurre 1965
kansakoulu
Stray find? Stone Age Salon yhteiskoulu Huurre 1965
Harjula, Kirjola Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2436:11-13 Huurre 1965
Iso-Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:9 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Hankkaannummi 670429 329550 670147 29541 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16330:1-3; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
16502:1-3; KM 33343
Järvi, Hankkaannummi 2 670477 329545 670196 29536 Undefined pit Undated Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
site
Järvi, Hankkaannummi 3 670455 329545 670174 29536 Charcoal Historical Period Laukkanen 2003
burning or tar
extraction site
Järvi, Hossanummi 670367 329472 670086 29463 Settlement site Stone Age KM 14752; KM 15905:1- Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
10; KM 17095:1-3; KM
17506:1-3; KM 17851;
KM 28834:1-147; KM
29575:1-138
Järvi, Ilola II 670311 329447 670030 29439 Stray find Stone Age KM 15911:1-2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Ilola III 670317 329445 670035 29437 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16113:1-7 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Kelola * 670305 329460 670024 29451 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15912:1-7 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Klipparinahde 670385 329434 670104 29425 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15903:1-4; KM 33346:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Klipparinnummi 670359 329452 670078 29444 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15904:1-7 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
 Järvi, Koivisto 670367 329499 670086 29490 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15906:1-3; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
28675:1-4; KM 28834:1-147
Järvi, Koivisto 670354 329498 670073 29490 Stray find Stone Age KM 15906:4 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Kotopelto 670359 329463 670077 29455 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16114:1-5 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Lepikkö Stray find Undated KM 16507 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Linnamäki 670299 329336 670018 29328 Hillfort Undated Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Appelgren 1891: 71-72
Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Lähdeahde 670381 329459 670099 29451 Stray find Stone Age KM 16503:1-2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Lähdeniemi 670351 329521 670070 29512 Stray find Stone Age KM 16334 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Metsola 670299 329420 670017 29411 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15913; KM 16329; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
KM 16754
Järvi, Metsolanpelto 670324 329457 670043 29448 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 15910:1-4; KM Huurre 1965; Söyrinki-Harmo
19512:1-3; KM 19640:1-4; 1977; Laukkanen 2003
KM 19860:1-14; KM
19955:1-6
Järvi, Mummunketo Stray find Stone Age KM 2502:1 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Myllypelto 670290 329522 670009 29514 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16117:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Mäkilä Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965
Järvi, Mölkkäri Stray find Stone Age KM 15915 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Ojakko Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 5984 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Ojakko Stray find Stone Age KM 6067:1 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Ojakko Stray find Stone Age KM 6173 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Ojakontaustan pelto 670353 329479 670072 29470 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16335; KM 16504:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Pajari Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965
Järvi, Terholanpelto ** 670342 329460 670061 29451 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 15909:1-4; KM 16755; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
KM 19639:1-2
Järvi, Turvaoja Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965
Järvi, Töyrylä 670277 329434 669996 29425 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16115:1-5; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
16506:1-2; KM 33327:1-2
Järvi, Uusipelto 670320 329506 670038 29497 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16116:1-5; KM 33347 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Järvi, Vartjomäki 670333 329503 670052 29495 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15907:1-9; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
16505:1-4; KM 17097:1-4
Järvi, Vehkaoja Stray find Undated KM 17098
Järvi, Vironkoukku Stray find Stone Age KM 15908 Huurre 1965
Järvi, Vähämetsä 670254 329416 669972 29407 Stray find Stone Age KM 15914 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kaivonpyöli Stray find Stone Age KM 7300:1; Perniön Huurre 1965
museo 42:1
Kaivonpyöli, Lehti 669608 329342 669327 29333 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15959:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003

483
Kaivonpyöli, Lehti Stray find Stone Age Muurlan museo Huurre 1965
 Kaukelmaa, Hakola Stray find Stone Age KM 15928; KM 16124 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003

484
Kaukelmaa, Mansikkaniemi Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965
Kaukelmaa, Mäntylä Stray find Stone Age MES KM 16232 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kaukelmaa, Paltta 670084 329655 669802 29646 Stray find Stone Age KM 16123 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kaukelmaa, Reimala * 670096 329782 669815 29774 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15929; KM 16425; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
KM 16522; KM 16987;
KM 33331
Kaukelmaa, Siankuopanmäki 669851 329896 669570 29887 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Laukkanen 2003
Kaukelmaa, Siankuopanmäki 669847 329890 669565 29881 Undefined Undated Laukkanen 2003
Kaukelmaa, Siankuopanmäki 669848 329893 669567 29884 Undefined Undated Laukkanen 2003
Kaukola Stray find Stone Age BAT Kaukolan kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Kaukola Stray find Stone Age Kaukolan kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Kaukola Stray find Stone Age Kaukolan kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Kaukola Stray find Stone Age Kaukolan kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Kaukola Stray find Stone Age Kaukolan kansakoulu Huurre 1965
Kaukola, Eskola 669637 329481 669356 29472 Stray find Stone Age KM 15964:1-3; KM 33341 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kaukola, Hakaveräjänpelto Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kaukola, Kylä-Havula 669633 329463 669351 29455 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15965:1-5; KM 16143; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
KM 17508:1-2
Kaukola, Leppäkoski Stray find Stone Age KM 3163:1 Huurre 1965
Kaukola, Pompari Stray find Stone Age Muurlan Kirkonkylän Huurre 1965
kansakoulu
Kaukola, Santasaari 669516 329554 669235 29546 Stray find Stone Age KM 15966 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kaukola, Töyrälä Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:12 Huurre 1965
Kirkonkylä Stray find Stone Age KM 12104 Huurre 1965
Kirkonkylä, Fiulmaakarin­ 669783 329586 669502 29578 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15941:1-3; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
ahde * 33334:1-2
Kirkonkylä, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age KM 2398 Huurre 1965
Kirkonkylä, Jokiranta 669896 329513 669614 29505 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/ KM 6548:1; KM 15937:1-23; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
EBA KM 16510:1-8; KM 16762:1-7
Kirkonkylä, Kaunela 669867 329434 669586 29425 Stray find Stone Age KM 15938 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kirkonkylä, Koskela 669795 329578 669513 29569 Settlement site? Stone Age MES KM 11574; KM 15940:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kirkonkylä, Kotimäki 669885 329442 669604 29433 Stray find Stone Age Muurlan kotiseutumuseo Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kirkonkylä, Lehtimäki * 669925 329449 669644 29440 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 33352:1-6 Laukkanen 2003
Kirkonkylä, Muurlanjoki Boat find Undated Huurre 1965
Kirkonkylä, Nikula 669787 329428 669506 29420 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15942:1-5 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kirkonkylä, Puistokankare 669805 329487 669524 29479 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15939:1-2; KM 33333:1-5 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
 Kirkonkylä, Pyymäki 669912 329426 669630 29417 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kirkonkylä, Pyymäki 669912 329426 669630 29417 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Laukkanen 2003 Tallgren 1931: 150
Kirkonkylä, Saarenpää * 669793 329479 669512 29470 Settlement site Stone Age KM 33348:1-4; Muurlan kotis. Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
museo 13, 14, 123, 151, 152
Kirkonkylä, Seurala II 669883 329446 669602 29437 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 14959 Huurre 1965
Kirkonkylä, Varemäki 669876 329394 669595 29386 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kirkonkylä, Varemäki 2 * 669869 329378 669588 29370 Undefined Undated KM 33353:1-7 Laukkanen 2003
Kirkonkylä, Varemäki 3 * 669862 329378 669581 29369 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 33354:1-6 Laukkanen 2003
Kistola Stray find Stone Age KM 12103 Huurre 1965
Kistola Stray find Historical Period KM 6775:1
Kistola, Alho 669795 329254 669514 29246 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 15943:1-4 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Hankelinin pelto 669696 329307 669415 29298 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15944:1-10 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Harimäki 669250 338362 668969 38350 Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:10; KM 15945 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Kiiliä 669716 329494 669435 29486 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 3187:7; KM 15948:1-4; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
KM 33336
Kistola, Knaapi Undefined Historical Period KM 6239
Kistola, Koivuniemi 669422 329792 669141 29783 Stray find Stone Age KM 6905:4; KM 15950 Huurre 1965
Kistola, Lamminjärvi Boat find Undated Huurre 1965
Kistola, Lehtikankare Stray find Stone Age KM 33326:1 Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Lehtikankare Stray find Historical Period? KM 33326:2 Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Lehtokari Stray find Undated Muurlan kirkonkylän Huurre 1965
kansakoulu
Kistola, Myllymäki 669744 329376 669463 29368 Stray find Stone Age? KM 15946:1-2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Männyntöyräs 669761 329487 669480 29479 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15947:1-15; KM 33335 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Pang Stray find Historical Period KM 6047
Kistola, Pangi Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:6 Huurre 1965
Kistola, Pangi 669780 329378 669499 29369 Stray find? Undated KM 33350 Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Pangi Stray find Stone Age KM 6867 Huurre 1965
Kistola, Pankki Stray find Historical Period KM 6775:2
Kistola, Peltoniemi 669606 329320 669325 29311 Settlement site Stone Age KM 6766:3; KM 15949:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Saariluoma Stray find Stone Age KM 6548:2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Tieva Stray find Stone Age KM 6762:2 Huurre 1965
Kistola, Toramäki 669945 329260 669664 29252 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Toramäki 669941 329262 669660 29253 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003

485
 Kistola, Toramäki 669941 329262 669660 29254 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

486
Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Toramäki 669940 329263 669659 29254 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Toramäki 669935 329264 669654 29255 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Toramäki 669935 329263 669654 29254 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Toramäki 669925 329294 669643 29286 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Laukkanen 2003 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kistola, Toramäki 669935 329262 669653 29254 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Kistola, Tuomola Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:8 Huurre 1965
Koski, Granbacka 670189 329581 669908 29572 Stray find Stone Age KM 16324:1-2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Kansakoulu Stray find Stone Age KM 19624
Koski, Ketomäki * 670171 329607 669890 29598 Settlement site Stone Age CC KM 15930:1-10; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
16509:1-4; KM 16625; KM
16761:1-28; KM 17507:1-3;
KM 33332:1-3
Koski, Kosken kansakoulu Stray find Stone Age KM 6105:3; Kosken Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
kansakoulu
Koski, Koski 1 670211 329596 669929 29587 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16326:1-4 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Koski 2 * 670213 329557 669932 29549 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16759:1-18 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Mänskankare Stray find Undated KM 16125 Huurre 1965
Koski, Nummila 670122 329593 669840 29584 Stray find Stone Age KM 16126 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Ojantöörä Stray find Undated KM 16758
Koski, Päivölä 670130 329577 669849 29568 Stray find? Stone Age BAT Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Pöytäluhto 670441 329707 670159 29699 Stray find Stone Age KM 33349:1 Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Pöytäluhto 670429 329698 670148 29689 Stray find? Undated KM 33349:2 Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Riihenpelto * 670243 329537 669961 29528 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16760:1-5 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Koski, Sahanummi 670094 329619 669813 29610 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15931:1-5; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
16325:1-2
Koski, Urheilukenttä 670075 329605 669794 29596 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 33351:1-3 Laukkanen 2003
Pullola Stray find Undated KM 16899:1-3
Pullola Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoelma
184
Pullola Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoelma
185
Pullola Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoelma
186
Pullola, Isotupa 669684 329216 669403 29208 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15956; KM 33337:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
 Pullola, Kankarpyöli 669586 329310 669304 29301 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 15958:1-2,4-6 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pullola, Kankarpyöli 669586 329310 669304 29301 Stray find Iron Age? KM 15958:3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pullola, Riihenmäki 669669 329259 669388 29250 Cairn Iron Age PRIA KM 15957:1-6 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003 Meinander 1969: 44
Pullola, Ruohola 669683 329190 669402 29182 Stray find Stone Age KM 15955 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pullola, Vähätalo Stray find? Bronze Age? Huurre 1965
Pullola, Ylöstupa Stray find Stone Age KM 4171:6-7 Huurre 1965
Pyöli, Hakala Stray find Stone Age KM 6992:1-2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Kausto * 669905 329606 669624 29597 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15933:1-3 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Koivumäki 669921 329526 669640 29517 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Koivumäki 669914 329527 669633 29519 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pyöli, Kotilampi * 669790 329606 669509 29597 Settlement site Stone Age KM 17096:1-3; KM 33345:1-4 Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Kuturmäki 669886 329548 669605 29539 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Huurre 1965 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pyöli, Kuturmäki 669903 329542 669621 29533 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Kuturmäki 669903 329540 669621 29531 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Kuturmäki 669893 329544 669612 29536 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Kuturmäki 669892 329546 669611 29538 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Kuturmäki 669905 329536 669623 29527 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2500:11 Hirviluoto 1962; Huurre 1965; Tallgren 1931: 150-151;
Laukkanen 2003 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pyöli, Kuturmäki 2 ** 669882 329541 669601 29532 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 15936:1-10 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Metssiantöyräs 669761 329696 669480 29687 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 12102; KM 15935 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Takapelto Stray find? Undated Huurre 1965
Pyöli, Uudensuontöyräs 669791 329689 669509 29680 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15934:1-2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Ylhäinen Stray find? Undated Kosken koulu Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Pyöli, Yrjälä Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965
Ranta, Knuutinpelto * 670103 329519 669822 29510 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16757:1-4; KM 33344 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ranta, Koskimäenpelto 670164 329526 669882 29517 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16128:1-17; KM 16331; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
KM 16332; KM 17099
Ranta, Saarelma Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 15932 Huurre 1965
Ranta, Taponpelto 670111 329540 669829 29532 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 4596:2; KM 16127:1-7 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Hentu ** 670286 329652 670005 29643 Stray find Stone Age? KM 28678:1-3; KM Laukkanen 2003
28679:1-5
Ruotsala, Hietamäki * 670220 329723 669938 29714 Settlement site Stone Age KM 27672:1-13; KM Laukkanen 2003
28683:1-4; KM 29574:1-98

487
 Ruotsala, Juva Stray find Undated KM 15923:1-2 Huurre 1965

488
Ruotsala, Juva Stray find Stone Age KM 16752 Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Kivioja Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Knaapi Stray find Undated KM 15924 Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Knaapi * 670263 329677 669981 29669 Stray find Stone Age? KM 28680:1-4 Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Knaapi Stray find Stone Age KM 3087:19
Ruotsala, Kuturamäki 670201 329718 669920 29709 Settlement site Stone Age KM 28681:1-7; KM Laukkanen 2003
28684:1-2; KM 29925:1-2
Ruotsala, Laurila 670299 329629 670018 29620 Stray find Stone Age? KM 16121:1-2; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
28677:1-4
Ruotsala, Luntlan makasiini Stray find Undated Kosken kansakoulu Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Pajuoja Stray find Stone Age MES KM 15926 Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Piiljärvi Boat find Undated Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Päivärinta Stray find Stone Age KM 15919 Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Ruotsalanjoki Boat find Undated Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Ruotsalanjoki 670271 329689 669990 29680 Stray find Undated KM 14962 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Ruotsalanjoki 670271 329689 669990 29680 Stray find Stone Age KM 9004:1-2 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Rytkönpää Stray find Stone Age KM 14751 Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Rytkönpää 670129 329776 669848 29768 Stray find Stone Age KM 15925 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Santaoja 670213 329848 669932 29840 Settlement site Undated MES KM 16122:1-2; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
16333:1-4; KM 16336:1-2;
KM 16337; KM 16508:1;
KM 16753; KM 33330:1-6.
Ruotsala, Sillanpäänpelto 670268 329701 669986 29692 Stray find Stone Age KM 15922 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Torkkelinpelto 670184 329871 669903 29862 Stray find Stone Age KM 16508:2
Ruotsala, Viisas 670302 329685 670020 29676 Stray find Stone Age KM 15921 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Viisas * 670289 329676 670008 29667 Settlement site Stone Age KM 28682:1-5; KM 33329 Laukkanen 2003
Ruotsala, Virstantolpan ahde Stray find Stone Age KM 15927 Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Vähä-Rytkö Stray find? Stone Age KM 14751 Huurre 1965
Ruotsala, Ylijoki 670304 329706 670022 29697 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15920:1-4 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Suoloppi, Kotikoivunnummi 670110 329437 669828 29428 Settlement site Early Metal Period PRIA KM 15916:1-4 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003 Meinander 1969: 45
Suoloppi, Kotopelto 670113 329448 669832 29439 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 15917:1-8 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Suoloppi, Kuopanpelto 670120 329435 669838 29427 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16118:1-4 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Suoloppi, Lamminketo Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965
Suoloppi, Leevintöörä 670098 329443 669817 29434 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16119 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Suoloppi, Mäntylä 670132 329439 669850 29430 Stray find Iron Age Huurre 1965
Suoloppi, Mäntylä 670140 329424 669859 29416 Stray find Stone Age? KM 16328 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
 Suoloppi, Tuuliranta 670134 329456 669852 29447 Stray find Undated KM 14889 Huurre 1965
Suoloppi, Tuulmoottorin- 670062 329434 669780 29425 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16120; KM 16327:1-3; Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
pelto KM 16756:1-2; KM 33328
Suoloppi, Vanhatalo 670028 329381 669747 29373 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 15918:1-4 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Vähä-Pullola 669650 329189 669369 29180 Stray find Stone Age KM 14960; KM 15952 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Vähä-Pullola, Prännäri 669666 329093 669384 29085 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 10642:1-2; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
15951:1-4; KM 20595:1-
25; KM 20600:1-2; KM
33338:1-2
Vähä-Pullola, Supparanta 669610 329256 669329 29247 Stray find Iron Age? KM 15953 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Vähä-Pullola, Takala Stray find Stone Age KM 15954 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Äijälä Stray find Stone Age KM 21714
Äijälä, Alajärvi Stray find? Undated Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Alajärvi Stray find Undated KM 14961 Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Alasjärvi Stray find Iron Age? KM 6766:5 Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Alasjärvi Stray find Iron Age? KM 6988 Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Heinäkari * 669590 329135 669308 29127 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 2589:1-4; KM 6762:3- Schvindt 1888; Hackman 1916;
4; KM 7014; KM 7096:1-4 Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
Äijälä, Heinäkari 669576 329140 669295 29132 Stray find Undated KM 33342 Laukkanen 2003
Äijälä, Jussila Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2436:9 Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Jäppi ** 669559 329122 669278 29113 Settlement site Stone Age KM 4409:1; KM 15961:1- Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
3; KM 15962:1-6; KM
33339:1-2
Äijälä, Kanturi 669511 329337 669230 29328 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15963:1-7; KM Huurre 1965; Laukkanen 2003
33340:1-2
Äijälä, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6766:4 Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Kotopelto 669572 329142 669291 29134 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 4409:2 Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Kotopelto 669572 329142 669291 29134 Stray find Iron Age KM 4593:11 Huurre 1965
Äijälä, Saari Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 15960 Huurre 1965

489
490
Nauvo
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find? Stone Age BAT KM 6801:1
Stray find? Undated KM 6801:2
Stray find? Undated KM 6801:3
Boat find Undated KM kt 8703
Dalkarby 668264 322376 667983 22371 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Dalkarby, Björkholm ** 668006 322454 667725 22449 Stray find Iron Age CP KM 5215 Meinander 1983: 237; Fagerlund
1992; Tuovinen 1994: 40
Ernholm, Ernholmsberget 668583 321837 668303 21831 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Finby Boat find Undated Fagerlund 1992: 13
Finby, Hvits 668759 321639 668479 21633 Labyrinth Historical Period Mickelson 1955; Asplund 1991
Finby, Kaiplot 668931 321914 668650 21908 Stone oven Post-Medieval Mickelson 1955
Finby, Kaiplot 668931 321915 668650 21909 Stone oven Post-Medieval Mickelson 1955
Finby, Kaiplot 668932 321917 668651 21911 Stone oven Post-Medieval Mickelson 1955
Finby, Kaiplot 668933 321915 668652 21909 Stone oven Post-Medieval Mickelson 1955
Finby, Kaiplot 668934 321916 668653 21910 Stone oven Post-Medieval Mickelson 1955
Finby, Taslot 668951 321566 668670 21560 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Finby, Taslot 668957 321569 668676 21564 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Grännäs, Lätlax Stray find Undated KM 19857
Hangslax 668515 322504 668234 22498 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hangslax 668517 322505 668236 22499 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hangslax 668517 322502 668236 22496 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hangslax 668515 322501 668234 22495 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hangslax 668514 322504 668233 22498 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hangslax 668496 322545 668215 22539 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hangslax 668502 322479 668221 22474 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Hangslax 668504 322480 668223 22474 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Hangslax 668506 322474 668226 22468 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Hangslax, Bårnholm 668761 322369 668480 22364 Hillfort Historical Period? Tuovinen 1992 Nordman 1937; Dahlström 1995:
96-101
Haverö 669223 322813 668942 22807 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Haverö 669224 322805 668943 22799 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Haverö 669191 322798 668910 22792 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Haverö, Norrbacka 669223 322809 668942 22803 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Haverö, Ådholm 668970 322517 668689 22511 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Hummelholm, Pokmo 667739 321163 667459 21157 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Högsar, Lalaxkärret 668200 321522 667919 21516 Pollen sample site Vuorela 1990
Högsar, Redamo 667869 321523 667589 21518 Labyrinth Historical Period Mickelson 1955
Innamo 669384 321019 669103 21014 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Innamo 669423 320995 669142 20989 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Innamo 669429 321040 669148 21035 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Innamo 669430 321039 669149 21034 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Innamo 669373 321078 669092 21073 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Innamo, Gaudis 669361 321012 669080 21007 Settlement site? Medieval or Post-Me- Tuovinen 1983
dieval
Innamo, Lilla Kuusis 669807 321425 669526 21419 Inscription Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Innamo, Lilla Kuusis 669828 321401 669547 21396 Inscription Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Innamo, Suranpäudden 669464 320985 669183 20980 Inscription Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1985
Innamo, Tammort 669459 321017 669178 21012 Inscription Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1985
Innamo, Vähä-Kuusinen 669836 321447 669555 21442 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Jälist Boat find Undated Fagerlund 1992: 13, 19
Kvivlax, Halsholm 667927 320987 667647 20982 Labyrinth Historical Period Tuovinen 1989
Kvivlax, Halsholm 667922 320982 667641 20977 Labyrinth? Historical Period Mickelson 1955; Tuovinen 1989
Kvivlax, Österstu 668024 320888 667743 20883 Stone oven Post-Medieval
Käldinge 668434 322611 668154 22605 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Käldinge 668355 322631 668075 22625 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Käldinge 668479 322565 668198 22559 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Käldinge 668415 322539 668134 22533 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Käldinge 668462 322568 668182 22562 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Käldinge 668423 322547 668143 22541 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Mielis, Västra Petisholmen 669203 321233 668922 21227 Stone oven Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Mielis, Västra Petisholmen 669204 321227 668923 21222 Stone oven Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Mielis, Västra Petisholmen 669203 321235 668922 21229 Stone oven Post-Medieval Tuovinen 1988
Nattviken Boat find Undated Fagerlund 1992: 13
Nattviken Boat find Undated Fagerlund 1992: 13
Nötö 666228 320847 665948 20842 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nötö 666244 320854 665964 20849 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nötö 666226 320859 665946 20854 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nötö, Klockarstenen 666195 320836 665915 20831 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988 Tuovinen 1988: 111-114;
Tuovinen 1990a: 93-96
Nötö, Mjoö 666268 320900 665988 20895 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

491
 Nötö, Mjoö 666290 320905 666010 20900 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

492
Nötö, Sundbergen 666241 320852 665961 20847 Cairn Iron Age and/or TYA 486:1-22 Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen 1990a: 55-56;
Medieval Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nötö, Sundbergen 666237 320854 665957 20849 Cairn Iron Age VA TYA 486:23-30 Tuovinen 1989 Tuovinen 1990a: 54-55;
Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Piparby 668365 322154 668084 22149 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Piparby, Brännskär 668129 321841 667848 21836 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Piparby, Brännskär 668129 321841 667848 21836 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Prostvik 668609 322625 668328 22619 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Prostvik 668556 322684 668276 22679 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Prostvik 668564 322680 668283 22674 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Prostvik 668694 322768 668414 22762 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Prostvik 668636 322662 668355 22656 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Prostvik 668794 322639 668513 22633 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Prostvik 668680 322791 668400 22785 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Prostvik 668656 322733 668375 22727 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Prostvik, Kalvinkallio 668886 322758 668606 22752 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Prostvik, Lillmotti 668632 322678 668352 22672 Non-site Undated TYA 548:1 Rajala 1992
Prostvik, Lillskogsberget 668630 322637 668349 22631 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Prostvik, Prostvik 1 668817 322641 668536 22635 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age
Prostvik, Prostvik 2 668782 322577 668501 22571 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age
Prostvik, Prostvik 3 668663 322788 668382 22782 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age
Prostvik, Storängen 668614 322640 668333 22635 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 32005
Puotuis, Vessor 669160 321265 668879 21260 Labyrinth? Historical Period Mickelson 1955; Tuovinen 1988
Puotuis, Vessor 669165 321282 668884 21276 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988
Puotuis, Vessor 669164 321281 668883 21276 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988
Puotuis, Vessor 669165 321280 668884 21274 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988
Puotuis, Vessor 669164 321275 668883 21270 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988
Puotuis, Vessor 669165 321273 668884 21268 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988
Puotuis, Vessor 669160 321275 668879 21270 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988
Puotuis, Vessor 669157 321261 668876 21255 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1988
Romsdalskärret Boat find Undated Fagerlund 1992: 13
Sandö 668415 322882 668134 22876 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sandö 668413 322880 668132 22874 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sandö, Askrundet 668641 323177 668360 23170 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Sandö, Öbergen 668421 322790 668140 22784 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
 Sandö, Öbergen 668418 322789 668138 22784 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Sandö, Öijen 668455 322871 668174 22865 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sandö, Öijen 668436 322848 668155 22842 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sandö, Öijen 668433 322848 668152 22842 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sandö, Öijen 668441 322713 668161 22707 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Sandö, Öijen 668435 322703 668154 22697 Tomtning Undated Rajala 1992
Sandö, Österudden 668569 323115 668289 23109 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sandö, Österudden 668569 323115 668289 23109 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sandö, Österudden 668571 323092 668290 23086 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sellmo 668734 321395 668453 21390 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Simonby 668594 322599 668314 22594 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Simonby 668567 322543 668287 22537 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Simonby 668572 322582 668291 22576 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Simonby 668571 322582 668290 22576 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Simonby 668567 322596 668287 22590 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Simonby 668617 322574 668336 22568 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Simonby * 668722 322519 668441 22513 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TYA 608:1-4, TYA 652:1-4 Asplund 1994
Simonby, Kiuasvuori 668654 322541 668373 22535 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Själö, Korsgrund 669331 322019 669050 22014 Stone oven Post-Medieval Mickelson 1955
Själö, Ängesnäs bergen 669121 322161 668840 22155 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 603 Tuovinen 1993 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sommarö, Bryggars 668052 322362 667772 22356 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1992
Sommarö, Bryggars 668052 322359 667772 22353 Undefined Undated Tuovinen 1992
Sydänperä, Norrskogsbergen 668595 320754 668314 20749 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sydänperä, Norrskogsbergen 668587 320753 668306 20748 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tackork, Näsberget 668519 320905 668238 20900 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tackork, Näsberget 668519 320914 668238 20909 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tackork, Näsberget 668517 320930 668237 20925 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vikom 668612 322199 668331 22193 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vikom 668589 322206 668308 22200 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vikom 668590 322204 668309 22198 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vikom 668587 322226 668306 22220 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vikom 668608 322179 668327 22173 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ytterholm 667825 321744 667544 21739 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

493
494
Paimio
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Cataloque num. Report references Litterature
Stray find? Undated KM 2012:3 Raike 2005
Stray find? Historical Period KM 2012:4 Raike 2005
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:14
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:15
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:16
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:17
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:18
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:19
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:20
Stray find Iron Age KM 2414:21
Stray find Stone Age? KM 2414:5
Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:9
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:1
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:2
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:4
Stray find Stone Age KM 4171:5
Stray find Iron Age? KM 4189:6
Stray find? Undated KM 4189:7-9 Raike 2005
Stray find Stone Age KM 5050:3
Stray find Stone Age KM 6221:1
Stray find Stone Age KM 6221:2
Stray find Stone Age KM 6221:3
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 784
Stray find Undated KM 798 Raike 2005
Stray find Iron Age CP KM 9402
Stray find Undated SatM 1631
Stray find Stone Age SatM 8127
Stray find Stone Age SatM 8128
Stray find Stone Age SatM 8551
Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TMM 122
Stray find Stone Age TMM 125
Stray find Stone Age TMM 126
Stray find Stone Age TMM 134
 Stray find Stone Age TMM 135
Stray find Stone Age TMM 136
Stray find Stone Age TMM 143
Stray find Stone Age TMM 150
Stray find Iron Age TMM 164
Stray find Stone Age TMM 195
Stray find Stone Age TMM 196
Stray find Stone Age TMM 197
Stray find Stone Age TMM 198
Stray find Stone Age TMM 199
Stray find Stone Age TMM 200
Stray find Stone Age TMM 201
Stray find Stone Age TMM 202
Stray find Bronze Age TMM 203
Stray find Stone Age TMM 204
Stray find Stone Age TMM 205
Stray find Stone Age TMM 206
Stray find Stone Age TMM 207
Stray find Stone Age TMM 208
Stray find Stone Age TMM 209
Stray find Stone Age TMM 210
Stray find Stone Age TMM 211
Stray find Stone Age TMM 212
Stray find Stone Age TMM 213
Stray find Stone Age TMM 214
Stray find Stone Age TMM 215
Stray find Stone Age CC TMM 216
Stray find Stone Age TMM 217
Stray find Stone Age TMM 218
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 219
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 220
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 221
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 222
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 223
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 224
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 225

495
 Stray find Stone Age? TMM 226

496
Stray find Undated TMM 227
Stray find Stone Age TMM 24
Stray find Stone Age TMM 25
Stray find Stone Age TMM 26
Stray find Stone Age TMM 27
Stray find Stone Age TMM 28
Stray find Stone Age TMM 29
Stray find Iron Age? TMM 320
Stray find Undated TMM 3367:1
Stray find Undated TMM 3379:1
Stray find Stone Age TMM 46
Stray find Stone Age TMM 58
Stray find Stone Age TMM 59
Stray find Stone Age TMM 60
Stray find Stone Age TMM 61
Stray find Stone Age TMM 6727
Stray find Stone Age TMM 72
Stray find Stone Age TMM 73
Stray find Stone Age TMM 74
Stray find Stone Age TMM 76
Stray find Undated TMM 85
Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TMM 95
Stray find Historical Period? TYA 739:1
Aakoinen 670429 326154 670147 26146 Stray find Stone Age KM 5361:1-2 Raike 2005
Anttila Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:7
Aro Stray find Stone Age TMM 7174
Aro, Eppisåker Stray find Stone Age TMM 7016
Aro, Eppisåker Stray find Stone Age TMM 7017
Aro, Rajalahti Stray find Stone Age KM 10037
Aro, Vakkavuori 670975 325797 670693 25789 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aro, Ylitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 9282:11-13
Askala Stray find? Stone Age KM 17005
Askala Stray find Stone Age KM 9865:3
Askala Stray find Stone Age TMM 15967
Askala, Alitalo ** 671623 326297 671341 26289 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Europaeus 1928 Ikäheimo 1982
 Askala, Alitalo Stray find Iron Age VA KM 9390:266
Askala, Alitalo Stray find Iron Age MER KM 9712
Askala, Alitalo Stray find Prehistoric? KM 9867
Askala, Alitalo 671629 326302 671347 26295 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, KM 9869:1-88,90-119 Leppäaho 1933; Kivikoski 1934; Erkola 1973; Ikäheimo
MIG Raike 2005 1982
Askala, Alitalo Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age CC KM 9971:1
Askala, Alitalo Stray find Iron Age? KM 9971:2
Askala, Alitalon nummi Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 9605:6-11 Pälsi 1933
Askala, Hallinahde Stray find Stone Age KM 9862:2
Askala, Huhta Stray find Stone Age CC KM 9605:13 Leppäaho 1952
Askala, Kankare Stray find Stone Age KM 9282:5-10
Askala, Keskitalo Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Raike 2005 Erkola 1973: 53
Askala, Keskitalo Stray find Iron Age VA KM 15808
Askala, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6566:2
Askala, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6566:3-5
Askala, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6583:1
Askala, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 9866
Askala, Keskitalo ** 671627 326307 671345 26300 Settlement site? Stone Age CC KM 9869:89,120 Kivikoski 1934; Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Askala, Keskitalo 671629 326302 671347 26295 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 9927:1-9; KM 9928:1-68 Kivikoski 1934; Raike 2005
Askala, Nummenalho 671942 326492 671660 26484 Settlement site Stone Age MES KM 30215:1-4 Bilund 1997; Raike 2005
Askala, Nummentalo 671610 326294 671328 26287 Cemetery? Iron Age? Hirviluoto 1961 Ikäheimo 1982
Askala, Nummentalo Stray find Stone Age KM 8956:5
Askala, Nummentalo Stray find Stone Age KM 8956:6
Askala, Nummentalo * 671643 326330 671361 26322 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 624:1-4 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Askala, Nummentalo ** 671633 326329 671351 26322 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 625:1-5 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Askala, Nummentalo ** 671590 326298 671308 26291 Stray find Iron Age CP TYA 626:11 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Askala, Nummentalo ** 671590 326298 671308 26291 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 626:1-10,12-48 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Askala, Raatalhaka ** 671647 326373 671365 26366 Stray find Iron Age KM 8956:8 Raike 2005
Askala, Rakisaaren nummi Stray find Undated KM 9605:2-5 Pälsi 1933
Askala, Toispuolojannummi 671644 326353 671362 26346 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age CC, KM 2414:22; KM 8696:4-6; Tallgren 1926; Europaeus 1928; Vanhatalo 1994
BAT, KM 8955:1-269; KM 9080; KM Ruonavaara 1974; Luoto 1981;
LNE/ 9282:1-4; KM 9390:1-265; KM Brusila 1990; Raike 2005
EBA, 9605:12; KM 9865:1-2; KM
LBA 18174:1-10; KM 18179:1-4; KM
19241:1-45; KM 24153; KM
25790:1-28; KM 26268; KM
27182; KM 28800; TYA 131:1-6;
TYA 203:1-197; TYA 542:1-4;

497
TYA 656:1; TYA 751:1-9
 Auvola, Pajula Stray find Stone Age KM 20331

498
Evainen, Kaitastenmäki 671820 327005 671538 26998 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35306 Raike 2005
Evainen, Välimäki 671825 327007 671543 27000 Stray find Stone Age TYA 31 Raike 2005
Halkilahti, 2 671112 325926 670830 25919 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005
Halkilahti, Matolan väljä Stray find Iron Age VA KM 3412:6 Ikäheimo 1982: 74
Halkilahti, Soukka 671152 325885 670870 25878 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 10113; KM 24134:1-19; Poutiainen 1988; Raike 2005
KM 24557:1-2160; KM
25438:1-3722
Hanhijoki, Alastalo 671271 326416 670989 26408 Settlement site Stone Age KM 35301:1-3 Raike 2005
Hanhijoki, Hanhiala 1 671198 326445 670916 26438 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35307:1-2 Raike 2005
Hanhijoki, Hanhiala 2 671151 326479 670869 26472 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35308 Raike 2005
Hanhijoki, Hanhiala 3 671116 326510 670834 26502 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35309 Raike 2005
Hanhijoki, Kuivamäki 671291 326408 671009 26400 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 35304 Raike 2005
Hanhijoki, Sorron pelto 671151 326479 670869 26472 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 13312 Raike 2005
Heikoinen, Ylitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 9862:1
Heikoinen, Ylitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 9862:3
Heikoinen, Ylitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 9862:4
Hellberginkylä, Kotiseutu- 671546 326305 671264 26298 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005
museo
Hellberginkylä, Kotiseutu- 671550 326304 671268 26297 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005
museo
Helsbergin kartano Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 4014:2 (copy); TMM
6106:1
Hevonpää, Alimmainen Stray find Iron Age VA KM 2436:19 Ikäheimo 1982: 74
Hevonpää, Herasniemi Stray find Undated TYA 231:1
Hevonpää, Lassinmäki 670931 325945 670649 25938 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hevonpää, Nenämäki 670777 326089 670495 26082 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hiidenala 670984 326000 670703 25993 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Hirviluoto 1961; Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hiidenala 670961 325995 670679 25988 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005
Huso Stray find Undated Oksala 1990; Raike 2005
Huso Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2012:2
Huso, Ilola Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 5251:3
Huso, Kelhen pelto 670406 326779 670124 26772 Stray find Undated Oksala 1990; Raike 2005
Huso, Tuomola 670494 326621 670213 26614 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Oksala 1990; Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Huso, Vuorenmaa Stray find Stone Age KM 8119:1-2
Huso, Vuorenmaa Stray find Stone Age KM 8119:3
Ilttula 670881 326670 670599 26662 Settlement site? Stone Age BAT KM 24138:1-3 Poutiainen 1988; Raike 2005
 Ilttula 670867 326669 670585 26662 Settlement site? Prehistoric? KM 24139:1-6 Poutiainen 1988; Raike 2005

Ilttula Stray find Stone Age Maanmittari F.W. Hellstenin

kokoelma Turussa
Ilttula, Alastupa Stray find Stone Age KM 6547:2
Iltula Stray find Undated KM 24140:1-2 Poutiainen 1988
Iso-Heikoinen, Keskitalo 671093 326692 670812 26685 Stray find Stone Age KM 35315:1-3 Raike 2005
Iso-Heikoinen, Linnavuori 671074 326637 670792 26630 Hillfort? Undated Erkola 1973; Ikäheimo 1982
Iso-Heikoinen, Mäkitalo 671149 326631 670867 26623 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35314 Raike 2005
Iso-Heikoinen, Mäkitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6712:3-4
Isokuusvuori 671292 326051 671010 26044 Cairn? Undated Raike 2005
Isokuusvuori 671288 326049 671006 26041 Cairn? Undated Raike 2005
Isokuusvuori 671290 326041 671008 26034 Cairn? Undated Raike 2005
Isokuusvuori, Peltomäki 671291 326052 671010 26045 Cairn? Iron Age? Kivikoski 1936; Raike 2005
Isokuusvuori, Peltomäki 671289 326054 671008 26047 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 10111:1-14 Kivikoski 1936; Raike 2005 Ikäheimo 1982
Jalkala Stray find Iron Age VA, CP TMM 7758 Ikäheimo 1982: 74
Jundola Stray find Historical Period? KM 1084 Raike 2005
Kaimala Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:12
Kaimala Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:13
Kaimala, Tiensuu 671572 326410 671290 26403 Stray find Stone Age Raike 2005
Kajanoja Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 742:1
Kajanoja, Alitalo Nummila ** 671664 326354 671382 26346 Stray find Stone Age KM 8956:7 Raike 2005
Kajanoja, Alitalo Nummila ** 671664 326354 671382 26346 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 8956:9 Raike 2005
Kajanoja, Kratarböle Stray find Stone Age KM 4171:2
Kajanoja, Kylämäki 671747 326356 671465 26348 Cemetery? Iron Age TYA 217:1-2
Kajanoja, Mansikkamaa 671715 326333 671433 26326 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 23407:1-5 Raike 2005
Kajanoja, Ylitalo Perkkiö Stray find Stone Age KM 4171:3
Kaleva Stray find Stone Age Hämeen museo / Lindellin
kokoelma 95
Kappalaisen puustelli Stray find Iron Age VA KM 2538
Kauhainen Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2436:1
Kauhainen Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2436:2
Kauhainen, Koiviston torppa Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 7779
Kauhainen, Koiviston torppa Stray find Stone Age TMM 7780
Kauhainen, Mäntykankare 671373 325895 671091 25888 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 25386:1-2 Raike 2005
Kauhainen, Ristiniittu * 671347 325909 671065 25901 Stray find? Stone Age Raike 2005
Kauhainen, Ristiniittu * 671342 325913 671060 25906 Stray find? Stone Age Raike 2005

499
 Kerkola Cemetery? Undated Tallgren 1926

500
Kevola Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 6282
Kevola, Kunnari Stray find Iron Age VA, CP TYA 41 Ikäheimo 1982
Kevola, Laiterla Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:8
Kevola, Laiterla Stray find Iron Age VA, CP KM 3187:52 Ikäheimo 1982: 74
Kevola, Varemäki 670922 326669 670640 26661 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kinkka, Kinkan kylätontti 670813 325914 670532 25906 Village Historical Period Raike 2005
Kinkka, Kinkan kylätontti 670812 325913 670530 25906 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 218:1 Raike 2005
Kovala 670870 326575 670588 26567 Settlement site Stone Age KM 35305 Raike 2005
Kovala Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 6463
Kovala, Alitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 2079
Kruusila ** 670959 326081 670677 26074 Stray find Iron Age VA TMM 13181; TYA 267:1 Asplund & Luoto 1985; Raike
2005
Kruusila 671009 326096 670727 26088 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 267:2 Asplund & Luoto 1985; Raike
2005
Kurjenkylä, Heikkilä Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TMM 14941:1-2
Kurki, Heikkilä Stray find Stone Age KM 6750:4
Kurki, Junni Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotiseutumuseo
4673
Kurki, Koivula 670504 326827 670222 26819 Settlement site Stone Age KM 18319:1-8 Raike 2005
Kyllälä Stray find Stone Age TMM 284
Kyllälä, Kolvuori 670852 325861 670570 25854 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kyysilä, Mänkärlä Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2012:1
Lehtihovi, Hentula Stray find Stone Age KM 14720
Linnasuo 671189 326937 670907 26930 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lopen pelto Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:11
Loppi Stray find Prehistoric? KM 494 Raike 2005
Lovi 671084 325996 670802 25989 Stray find Undated KM 24136:1-6 Poutiainen 1988; Raike 2005
Lovi, Kakkarvuori 671134 326036 670852 26029 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 24135:1-3 Poutiainen 1988; Raike 2005
Lovi, Lovenmäki 671094 326024 670813 26017 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lovi, Potkelan linnavuori 671043 325890 670761 25883 Hillfort? Undated Erkola 1973; Ikäheimo
1982
Majankalma 671614 326183 671332 26176 Settlement site Stone Age KM 35302:1-4 Raike 2005
Majankalma, Vuorela 671615 326208 671333 26201 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 23603 Raike 2005
Majankalma, Vuorela 671609 326210 671327 26203 Stray find Stone Age? KM 23604 Raike 2005
Maljamäki, Kankareenmäki 670789 326679 670508 26671 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Maljamäki, Kankareenmäki 670789 326680 670508 26672 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Maljamäki, Kirkkoniitun- 670740 326536 670458 26529 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
mäki
Maljamäki, Kirkkoniitun- 670741 326536 670459 26529 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
mäki
Maljamäki, Leikola 670788 326678 670507 26670 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1993; Raike 2005
Maljamäki, Leikola 670788 326678 670507 26670 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1993; Raike 2005
Maljamäki, Litto 670797 326661 670515 26653 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1992; Raike 2005
Maljamäki, Litto Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 9231
Maljamäki, Löyhäistenmäki 670554 326566 670272 26558 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Maljamäki, Löyhäistenmäki 670556 326566 670274 26558 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Maljamäki, Löyhäistenmäki 670554 326566 670272 26558 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Maljamäki, Mäntylä 670792 326570 670510 26562 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35310 Raike 2005
Maljamäki, Mäntylä 670787 326571 670505 26564 Stray find Stone Age TYA 543 Raike 2005
Maljamäki, Nahkavuori 670703 326686 670421 26678 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Maljamäki, Saarikko 670757 326556 670475 26549 Stray find Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 9830 Kivikoski 1934; Raike 2005 Kivikoski 1937: 56-57
Maljamäki, Saarikko Stray find Stone Age KM 9863
Meltola, Fuila 670642 326015 670361 26007 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Meri-Anttila 670798 325805 670516 25798 Cairn? Undated Lindroos 1928; Raike 2005
Metsä-Anttila Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:6
Moisio, Kivimäki 671936 325991 671654 25984 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 30919:1-5 Raike 2005
Moisio, Räpälän vanha 671327 326235 671045 26227 Chapel site Historical Period KM hist. 3089:1-9 Raike 2005
kirkonpaikka
Munkkila, Katajamäki 671314 326095 671032 26087 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 24283:1-31; TYA 180:1- Luoto 1981; Raike 2005 Ikäheimo 1982
83; TYA 237:1-2
Munkkila, Laukonmäki 671390 325987 671108 25979 Settlement site Stone Age KM 30217:1-3 Bilund 1997; Raike 2005
Nakolinna Stray find Undated KM 14900:1
Nakolinna Stray find Undated TMM 16194:1
Nummila 671563 326416 671281 26409 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age Raike 2005
Nummila, Söderbacka Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TMM 13689:1
Oinila Stray find Stone Age TYA 232:1-3
Oinila Stray find Iron Age? TYA 232:4
Oinila, Alhainen Stray find Stone Age KM 6583:2-3
Oinila, Alhaisi 671424 326348 671142 26341 Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 10454 Raike 2005 Kivikoski 1937: 53-54
Oinila, Alhaisi Stray find Stone Age KM 10455
Oinila, Alhola ** 671477 326292 671195 26285 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Europaeus 1928
Oinila, Alhola ** 671477 326292 671195 26285 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Europaeus 1928

501
 Oinila, Alhola * 671481 326298 671199 26291 Settlement site Stone Age CC, KM 8696:3 8720:1-4; KM Tallgren 1926; Europaeus 1928;

502
BAT 8781:1-4; KM 8956:1-4; KM Raike 2005
17707; KM 17708; KM 17709;
KM 18180; KM 21921:1-2
Oinila, Alhola Stray find Stone Age KM 9864:1-2
Oinila, Alhola II 671485 326301 671203 26293 Settlement site Stone Age
Oinila, Kivekkään palsta 671413 326343 671131 26335 Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 13734 Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela 671545 326290 671263 26283 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela 671535 326293 671253 26285 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela 671447 326307 671165 26300 Stray find Stone Age KM 13313:1 Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela ** 671444 326304 671162 26296 Settlement site Iron Age? KM 13313:2-3; KM 13461:1- Leppäaho 1957; Raike 2005
76
Oinila, Lautela Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 14719:1-2
Oinila, Lautela 671445 326307 671163 26299 Undefined Iron Age? KM 15134 Hirviluoto 1961; Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela ** 671497 326289 671215 26282 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 628:1-5 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela 671533 326293 671251 26285 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 629:29-30 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela (2) * 671564 326285 671282 26278 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 627:1-17 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela (3) * 671541 326292 671259 26285 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age CC, BAT TYA 629:1-28 Palo 1996; Raike 2005
Oinila, Lautela Riihipelto Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:2
Oinila, Lautela, Tiensuu Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:3
Oinila, Lautela, Tiensuu Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:4
Oinila, Lautelantie 671420 326308 671138 26300 Cup-marked Iron Age? Luoto 1984; Raike 2005
stone
Oinila, Luonnonmaa * 671505 326282 671224 26274 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 11662:1-3 Raike 2005
Oinila, Luonnonmaa 671459 326314 671177 26307 Settlement site Stone Age KM 8696:1-2 Tallgren 1926; Raike 2005
Oinila, Rantapelto 1 671450 326297 671168 26289 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 35316 Raike 2005
Oinila, Rantapelto 2 671486 326287 671204 26279 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 35317:1-2 Raike 2005
Oinila, Upalinko 671509 326292 671227 26284 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35311 Raike 2005
Oinilanmäki 671207 326361 670925 26353 Pollen sample Tolonen 1985a; Tolonen
site 1987a
Palomäki 670830 326428 670548 26421 Pollen sample Tolonen 1985a
site
Pappila Stray find Stone Age CC KM 11828:1-2
Pappila, Riihimäki ** 671414 326221 671132 26214 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 35318; TYA 154:1-3 Luoto 1979; Raike 2005 Ikäheimo 1982
Penimäki 671026 325986 670744 25979 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Penimäki 671029 325986 670747 25979 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tallgren 1926; Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Penimäki 671036 326013 670754 26005 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Penimäki Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Penimäki, Laukkamäki 671050 326044 670769 26037 Settlement site? Prehistoric KM 8799 Lindroos 1928; Raike 2005
Pitkäporras, Aro Stray find Stone Age KM 6750:2-3
Preilä Stray find Historical Period KM 6712:7
Preitilä, Spurilan 671381 326634 671099 26626 Settlement site Stone Age KM 35312:1-2 Raike 2005
hiekkakuoppa
Preitilä, Spurilan Stray find Stone Age KM 4171:1
hiekkakuoppa
Preitilänsuo 670998 326715 670716 26708 Pollen sample Tolonen 1985a; Tolonen
site 1987b; Tolonen & Kuk-
konen 1989
Pyhäloukas, Isotalo Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 2436:3
Ranta-alho, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 14168:1
Rautalho, Kivilänmäki 671067 325815 670785 25808 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rekottila 671005 326579 670723 26572 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Lindroos 1928; Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rekottila, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6712:1-2
Rekottila, Katinhäntä 670934 326596 670652 26589 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rekottila, Katinhäntä 670934 326594 670653 26587 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rekottila, Katinhäntä 670934 326594 670653 26587 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rekottila, Katinhäntä 670933 326595 670652 26587 Undefined Undated Raike 2005
Rekottila, Katinhäntä 670933 326594 670652 26586 Undefined Undated Raike 2005
Rekottila, Linnamäki 670950 326599 670668 26591 Hillfort Undated Lindroos 1928; Raike 2005 Appelgren 1891
Rukkijoki Stray find Undated
Rukkijoki, Alifrosti Stray find Stone Age KM 9702
Rukkijoki, Frosti Stray find Stone Age KM 4171:4
Rukkijoki, Kehinojannummi 671921 326401 671639 26393 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 9668:1-6; KM 9696:1-15 Kivikoski 1933; Raike 2005
Rukkijoki, Kuotinen Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 12329
Rukkijoki, Kuotinen 671817 326428 671535 26420 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 35319 Raike 2005
Rukkijoki, Kuotinen Stray find Stone Age KM 9282:14-15
Sattela, Muurmäki 671342 326897 671060 26889 Hillfort Undated Lindroos 1928; Raike 2005 Appelgren 1891; Ikäheimo
1982
Sievola Stray find Stone Age KM 12044
Sievola Stray find Iron Age CP KM 4230:1-10 Tallgren 1931: 166; Talvio
2002: 140-142
Sievola 671353 326127 671071 26120 Settlement site? Iron Age VA TYA 179:1-1226; TYA 186:1- Luoto 1982 Ikäheimo 1982
1991 (part of)
Sievola Stray find Iron Age? TYA 241:1-3
Sievola, Kumpumäki 671318 326104 671036 26097 Settlement site Iron Age KM 24284:1-59; TYA 240:1-4 Luoto 1981; Raike 2005
Sievola, Meisala Stray find Undated KM 6750:5

503
 Sievola, Sievola A 671353 326116 671071 26109 Settlement site Iron Age VA, CP TYA 153:1-13; TYA 179:1- Luoto 1979; Luoto 1982 Ikäheimo 1982

504
1226; TYA 186:1-1991 (part of)
Sievola, Sievola B 671358 326120 671076 26112 Cemetery Iron Age MIG, TYA 179:1-1226 (part of) Luoto 1982 Ikäheimo 1982
MER,
VA
Sievola, Sievola C 671357 326126 671075 26119 Cemetery Iron Age MER, TYA 186:1-1991 (part of) Luoto 1982 Ikäheimo 1982
VA
Sievola, Sievola C 671355 326127 671073 26120 Settlement site Iron Age TYA 209:1-462 Fischer & Luoto 1982
Sievola, Sievola D 671347 326140 671065 26133 Settlement site? Iron Age? Luoto 1982
Sievola, Sievola E 671366 326144 671085 26137 Settlement site? Iron Age? Luoto 1982
Siililä Stray find Stone Age TMM 6283
Siililä Stray find Stone Age TMM 6287
Siililä, Krannas Stray find Stone Age KM 9276:3-4
Siililä, Lautkankare 671613 326216 671331 26209 Settlement site Stone Age KM 35303:1-4 Raike 2005
Siililä, Uotilanvuori 671718 326248 671436 26241 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Silkkilä Stray find Stone Age BAT SatM 9060
Spurila 671341 326374 671059 26367 Stray find Iron Age VA TMM 16285:7 Ikäheimo 1982
Spurila 671357 326350 671075 26342 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 182:1,3-12 Luoto 1981 Ikäheimo 1982
Spurila 671366 326344 671084 26337 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 182:2
Spurila 671342 326380 671060 26373 Stray find Iron Age TYA 223:1075
Spurila 671368 326397 671086 26390 Stray find Undated TYA 223:1076
Spurila 671357 326371 671075 26364 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 223:1078-1079
Spurila 671360 326354 671078 26347 Stray find Undated TYA 223:1080
Spurila 671351 326375 671069 26367 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 223:1081
Spurila * 671359 326409 671078 26401 Stray find Iron Age TYA 223:1082
Spurila * 671357 326410 671075 26403 Stray find Undated TYA 223:1094-1104
Spurila 671374 326397 671092 26389 Stray find Undated TYA 223:1109
Spurila 671370 326383 671088 26376 Stray find Undated TYA 223:1110-1111
Spurila 671297 326376 671015 26369 Stray find Historical Period? TYA 223:1112
Spurila 671320 326347 671038 26340 Stray find Historical Period? TYA 223:1113
Spurila 671350 326346 671068 26338 Stray find Post-Medieval TYA 223:1114
Spurila 671341 326415 671059 26408 Stray find Prehistoric? TYA 223:1115
Spurila 671351 326396 671069 26388 Stray find Iron Age TYA 236:3,6 Asplund et al. 1983
Spurila 671334 326370 671052 26362 Stray find Iron Age TYA 244:601 Asplund & Luoto 1985
Spurila 671338 326380 671056 26373 Stray find Iron Age TYA 244:602 Asplund & Luoto 1985
Spurila 671328 326368 671046 26360 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 244:603-604 Asplund & Luoto 1985
Spurila 671340 326368 671058 26361 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 244:605 Asplund & Luoto 1985
 Spurila Stray find Historical Period TYA 736:1
Spurila Stray find Iron Age TYA 736:2
Spurila, A 671366 326366 671084 26359 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Asplund & Luoto 1985
Spurila, A 671366 326366 671084 26359 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 223:1077; TYA 235:1-4; Asplund et al. 1983; Asplund & Asplund 1985
TYA 244:1-600,614-624; TYA Luoto 1985; Asplund & Luoto
269:1-411, TYA 325:1-125 1986
(part of)
Spurila, A 671366 326366 671084 26359 Cemetery Iron Age PRIA, TYA 235:1-4; TYA 244:1- Asplund et al. 1983; Asplund & Asplund 1985
ERA, 600,614-624; TYA 269:1-411; Luoto 1985; Asplund & Luoto
LRA, TYA 325:1-125 (part of) 1986
MIG, VA
Spurila, A 671366 326366 671084 26359 Stray find Bronze Age TYA 244:425 Asplund & Luoto 1985
Spurila, B 671362 326368 671080 26361 Cemetery Iron Age CP TYA 244:437,455- Asplund & Luoto 1985
456,496,551,562-664,573-580
Spurila, C 671342 326382 671060 26375 Cemetery? Iron Age VA TYA 236:4,7; TYA 271:1-89 Asplund et al. 1983; Asplund & Asplund 1985
(part of) Luoto 1985
Spurila, C 671342 326382 671060 26375 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 271:1-89 (part of) Asplund & Luoto 1985
Spurila, D 671366 326407 671085 26400 Cemetery Iron Age MIG TYA 236:1-2,5,8; TYA Asplund et al. 1983 Asplund 1985
273:1-47
Spurila, E 671349 326411 671067 26403 Cemetery Iron Age ERA, TYA 211:1-373; TYA 223:1- Fischer & Luoto 1983; Pärs­si­nen Asplund 1985; Luoto 1985;
LRA, 965,1074,1116-1152 1984 Seppä-Heikka 1985
MIG
Spurila, F 671345 326413 671063 26406 Settlement site Iron Age TYA 223:966-1073,1083-1093; Asplund & Luoto 1984; Asp­lund Asplund 1985; Luoto 1985
TYA 244:610-613 & Luoto 1984; Pärssinen 1984
Spurila, G * 671337 326354 671055 26347 Settlement site Iron Age CP TYA 244:606-609; TYA Asplund & Luoto 1984; Asp­lund
268:1-6 & Luoto 1985
Spurila, h 671370 326396 671088 26388 Settlement site? Iron Age? TYA 223:1105-1108, TYA Asplund & Luoto 1985 Asplund 1985
272:1-53
Spurila, H 671361 326374 671079 26367 Cemetery Iron Age ERA, TYA 244:446,447,458,505,5 Asplund & Luoto 1985; Asplund
MIG, 21,553,568; TYA 270:1-155 & Luoto 1986
VA (part of)
Spurila, H 671361 326374 671079 26367 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 270:1-155 (part of) Asplund & Luoto 1986
Spurila, Ketunnummi Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 6566:1
Spurila, Lopen kartano Stray find Stone Age KM 1144
Spurila, Rajala Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 9276:1
Spurila, Seppä Stray find Stone Age KM 9276:2
Spurila, Varasvuori 671331 326476 671049 26468 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2435:2 Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suksela Stray find Stone Age KM 2414:1
Suksela Stray find Stone Age TMM 6287
Suksela, Heikkilänmäki 671788 326289 671505 26282 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 181:1-101 (part of) Raike 2005 Ikäheimo 1982

505
 Suksela, Heikkilänmäki 671788 326289 671505 26282 Cemetery? Iron Age TYA 181:1-101; TYA 216:1- Raike 2005

506
16; TYA 510:1-2 (part of)
Suppa Stray find Stone Age KM 5102:3
Suppala 671275 326047 670993 26040 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 35313 Raike 2005
Tanisi 671173 325900 670891 25893 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tanisi 671171 325900 670889 25892 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tanisi 671169 325914 670887 25906 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tanninen 671164 325893 670882 25886 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tikanlinna Stray find Undated Perniön museo Am
Tiskarla Stray find Stone Age TMM 307
Tomero Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 8748
Tupila Stray find Stone Age KM 6853:1
Tupila Stray find Undated KM 6853:2
Tupila, Kujala Stray find Stone Age KM 6712:5
Tupila, Kujala Stray find Historical Period KM 6712:6
Vaahde, Riihelä Stray find Stone Age KM 6986:4-6
Valkoja Stray find Undated KM 2414:10
Vartsalo, Alhainen Stray find Stone Age TMM 15761
Vartsalo, Haltiahaan lähde 670822 326082 670540 26075 Holy well Historical Period Raike 2005
Vartsalo, Herrankartano 671001 326138 670719 26131 Settlement site Medieval KM 8696:7 Leppäaho 1933; Kivikoski 1934;
Raike 2005
Vartsalo, Herrankartano 671001 326138 670719 26131 Cemetery? Iron Age ERA KM 9711, KM 9861 Leppäaho 1933; Kivikoski 1934; Leppäaho 1934; Salo 1968
Raike 2005
Vartsalo, Kerossaari 670907 326174 670626 26167 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 24137:1-3; KM 35320 Poutiainen 1988; Raike 2005
Vartsalo, Tipumäki 670802 326185 670520 26178 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vartsalo, Truski 670771 326061 670490 26053 Undefined Historical Period? TYA 210:1-16 Ikäheimo 1982
Vartsalo, Viksberg 671014 325898 670732 25891 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Veikkari, Nakolinna ** 671467 326138 671185 26130 Hillfort Iron Age MIG TYA 155:1-8 Lindroos 1928; Luoto 1979; Raike Appelgren 1891; Luoto
2005 1990a
Viksberg, Perkkiö Stray find Stone Age TMM 7783:1
Villisi 671198 325799 670916 25792 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005
Villisi, Miettula 671207 325820 670925 25813 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 2005
Villisi, Ylitalo Settlement site? Stone Age KM 25376:1-24
Vista Stray find Stone Age KM 2534:59
Vista Stray find Undated KM 6135
Vista, Karhunpyölin krotit 671251 326380 670969 26373 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 2347, KM 2435:1, KM 2552 Schvindt 1887; Raike 2005 Ikäheimo 1982
Vista, Pakurla 671202 326302 670920 26294 Stray find Undated KM 20275 Raike 2005
 Vista, Pakurla 671202 326302 670920 26294 Stray find Iron Age KM 20277 Raike 2005
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Undated KM 3640:24
Vista, Pakurla 671214 326308 670932 26301 Stray find Iron Age and/or CP KM hist. 65049:1 Raike 2005 Ikäheimo 1982
Medieval
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Stone Age TMM 6640:1
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Historical Period TYA 152:1
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Undated TYA 152:2
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Undated TYA 152:3
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Undated TYA 152:4
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Undated TYA 152:5
Vista, Pakurla Stray find Undated TYA 152:6
Vista, Pakurla Rivonmäki Stray find Stone Age KM 16733
Vista, Pakurla Talkooniitty 671150 326265 670868 26258 Stray find Iron Age KM 20276 Raike 2005
Vista, Paltan kappalaisen Stray find Undated KM 2435:1
virkatalo
Vista, Pietilä Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 9306
Vohteenkellarinsuo 670826 326277 670544 26269 Pollen sample Vuorela 1983
site
Vuohimäki 671410 326023 671128 26015 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze KM 30216:1-5 Bilund 1997; Raike 2005
Age
Vuolte, Riihilä Stray find Stone Age KM 3640:24
Vähä-Heikoinen, Ylitalo 671607 326537 671325 26529 Stray find Undated Raike 2005

507
508
Parainen
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Iron Age VA, CP Talvio 1994: 53; Talvio 2002: 142
668862 323951 668581 23945 Stray find? Stone Age
Attu, Kapelludden 668316 323912 668035 23905 Chapel site Medieval TYA 512:1, TYA 551, Asplund 1990; Asplund 1991;
TYA 577:1-2, TYA 657:1 Asplund 1994
Attu, Labbholm 668091 324276 667810 24270 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Attu, Labbholm 668092 324276 667811 24270 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Attu, Pargas port 668021 323850 667741 23843 Stone oven Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Björkholm 668426 323675 668145 23669 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Björkholm 668427 323676 668146 23669 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Bläsnäs 669841 324021 669560 24014 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Bläsnäs 669848 324016 669567 24010 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Bläsnäs, Nedergård 669832 324032 669551 24026 Stray find Stone Age LNE/EBA KM 7995:15 Lehto 1959: 2
Boda 668601 324305 668320 24299 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Boda 668601 324304 668320 24298 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Boda 668601 324303 668320 24297 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Boda 668607 324321 668326 24315 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Boda, Fanasund 668609 324442 668328 24435 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Degerby, Fagervik 669256 323051 668975 23045 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 641:1-158, TYA Raike 1999; Kehusmaa 1999
666:1-94, TYA 711:1-47
Degerby, Kalkuddsbergen 669279 323216 668998 23210 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Degerby, Klofsan 669260 322950 668979 22944 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Garsböle, Övergård 669802 324886 669520 24879 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age
Garsböle, Övergård 669856 324914 669575 24908 Stray find? Stone Age
Gråberget 669615 324036 669334 24030 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Granvik 668572 323725 668291 23719 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Haradsholm, Fläskbergen 668717 323476 668437 23470 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Haradsholm, Fläskbergen 668722 323482 668441 23476 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Rajala 1992
Haradsholm, Fläskbergen 668722 323476 668442 23470 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Haradsholm, Fläskbergen 668744 323456 668464 23450 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Haradsholm, Fläskbergen 668759 323454 668478 23447 Stone oven? Historical Period Rajala 1992
Haradsholm, Karingrund 668725 323205 668444 23199 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984; Rajala 1992
Haraldsholm, Långstrandsberg 668602 323482 668322 23475 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Haradsholm, Öijen 668713 323325 668432 23319 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Haraldsholm, Ön 668708 323269 668427 23263 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Heisala, Kärrvik 668359 323693 668078 23686 Stone oven Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Hembygdsvägen 669696 324025 669415 24018 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Jermo 667933 324119 667653 24112 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Jermo 668008 323848 667728 23842 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age
Jermo 668040 323992 667760 23986 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age
Jermo 667993 323989 667713 23982 Stray find Iron Age VA Pargas hembygds­- Asplund 1992
museum 2869
Jermo, Portnäset 668029 323883 667749 23876 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Jermo, Roparudden 667991 323983 667710 23976 Undefined Historical Period Brusila 1993
Kapellstrand, Nunnavuori 670001 324516 669720 24509 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Lehtonen 2003
Kapellstrand, Nunnavuori 670007 324520 669726 24513 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Lehtonen 2003
Kirjala, Bredviksbacken 670262 324357 669981 24350 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kirjala, Bredviksbacken ** 670267 324366 669986 24359 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kopparböle 669650 323068 669369 23061 Undefined Historical Period
Kopparböle 669652 323066 669371 23060 Undefined Undated
Kopparböle 669655 323066 669374 23060 Undefined Undated
Kopparböle 669659 323072 669377 23066 Undefined Historical Period
Kopparböle 669661 323072 669380 23066 Undefined Undated
Koupo, Rösbacken 669650 323048 669369 23042 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 843:1-48, 56 Asplund 2007
Koupo, Rösbacken 669650 323048 669369 23042 Cairn Iron Age TYA 843:49-55 Asplund 2007
Koupo, Uppgård 669648 323048 669367 23042 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Koupo, Uppgård 669652 323047 669371 23041 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kullasbacken 669699 324046 669417 24039 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Kyrksundet 669738 324086 669457 24079 Stray find Post-Medieval Brusila & Ikäheimo 1986
Lillmälö, Sandholm 668936 323006 668655 23000 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lilltervo, Nygård 668888 323289 668607 23282 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lilltervo, Nygård 668902 323304 668621 23298 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lilltervo, Nygård 668903 323311 668622 23305 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lofsdal 669061 323597 668780 23590 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lofsdal 669077 323638 668796 23632 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Lofsdal 669085 323595 668804 23589 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Lofsdal 669134 323638 668853 23631 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lofsdal 669161 323691 668880 23685 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lofsdal, Bergholmen 669281 323776 669000 23769 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Lofsdal, Kummelberget 668973 323696 668692 23690 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age
Lofsdal, Kummelberget 668973 323713 668692 23707 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

509
 Lofsdal, Kummelberget 668973 323710 668693 23704 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

510
Lofsdal, Lenholm 669072 323552 668791 23545 Settlement site Historical Period Tuovinen 1995
Lofsdal, Namnberget 669116 323611 668835 23605 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Lofsdal, Stortervo 669156 323659 668875 23652 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Loskarnäs 670046 323766 669764 23760 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Loskarnäs 670087 323768 669805 23761 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Loskarnäs, Östergård Boat find Medieval or Post-Medieval TMM 16316:1-3
Långholmen 668573 323988 668293 23982 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Långholmen 668575 324020 668295 24013 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Malmgatan 669688 324075 669407 24068 Stray find Iron Age KM 13619 Tuovinen 1994: 40
Mielisholm 668727 324074 668446 24067 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mielisholm 668728 324073 668448 24066 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mustfinnö 669825 322983 669544 22977 Non-site Undated
Mågby 668547 323595 668266 23589 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby 668549 323646 668269 23639 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby 668554 323636 668273 23630 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby 668710 323601 668429 23595 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby, Klobben 668502 323490 668221 23484 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby, Sandvik 668547 323615 668266 23609 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby, Sandvik 668548 323595 668267 23589 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby, Sandvik 668550 323622 668270 23615 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby, Sandvik 668565 323633 668285 23627 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mågby, Sandvik 668567 323587 668286 23581 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ontala Stray find Undated
Ontala Stray find? Stone Age LNE/EBA
Ontala 669679 323264 669398 23258 Undefined Undated Nyberg 1984
Parsby, Östergård * 669745 324014 669463 24007 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 15526
Prästgården 669671 324208 669389 24202 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Pölsböle 670235 324698 669954 24691 Undefined Undated
Sildala, Stortervo 668882 323657 668601 23650 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Skärmola 669442 323271 669161 23265 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Skräbböle 669473 323928 669192 23921 Inscription Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Sorpo, Dirgerholmen 668185 323784 667904 23778 Stone oven Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Sorpo, Porttorpsbacken 668021 323816 667741 23810 Stone oven Post-Medieval Nyberg 1984
Stormälö, Klofsudden 669247 322927 668966 22921 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Strandby, Norrby 669710 322957 669429 22951 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Sunnanberg 669848 323379 669567 23373 Undefined Undated
Sydmo 669515 322984 669234 22978 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sydmo, Ålö Boat find Post-Medieval KM kt 7490
Sydmo, Sydmo malmarna 669722 323061 669441 23055 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age TYA 499:1-2 Tuovinen 1989
Tara, Norrgård 669840 323714 669559 23708 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tara, Norrgård 669841 323708 669560 23702 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Toijois 669893 323445 669611 23439 Undefined Undated
Tojoinen, Vivalängsberg 669895 323451 669613 23444 Undefined Undated Brusila 1989
Vallis, Södergård 669690 323669 669408 23663 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 170 Mickelson 1954; Sjöstrand 1980 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vannais, Nygård 670007 323262 669726 23256 Stray find? Undated
Vannais, Nygård 669961 323299 669679 23293 Stray find Undated KM 10958:1 Lehto 1959: 2
Vannais, Nygård 669981 323301 669699 23295 Stray find Iron Age KM 10958:2
Vånå, Uppgård Stray find Post-Medieval KM Rahakammio 69004 Ahlberg 1998: 11, 50
Västermälö 669227 323189 668946 23183 Undefined Undated Rajala 1992
Västermälö, Vestergård 669191 323120 668910 23114 Tomtning Medieval or Post-Me- TYA 788:1-5 Asplund 2002
dieval
Vävargatan 669698 324100 669416 24093 Stray find Historical Period
Widkulla Stray find Medieval or Post-Me- Pargas hembygds­
dieval museum 672

511
512
Perniö
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Undated KM 10045:14
Stray find Stone Age KM 10045:16-17
Undefined Stone Age BAT KM 10531
Stray find Undated KM 16727
Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:142
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2912:143
Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:150
Stray find Stone Age KM 3106:6
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 3163:12
Stray find Stone Age KM 3163:13
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:21
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:22
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:27
Stray find? Iron Age KM 3187:44
Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:23
Stray find Historical Period? KM 6129:6
Stray find Stone Age KM 8707:7
Stray find Stone Age Paarskylän kartano F.K.2
Stray find Undated Paarskylän kartano F.K.3
Stray find Undated Paarskylän kartano F.K.4
Stray find Stone Age Paarskylän kartano F.K.5
Stray find Undated Paarskylän kartano F.K.6
Stray find Stone Age Paarskylän kartano F.K.6
Stray find Bronze Age Perniön museo
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 10:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 11:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 13:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 14:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 15:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 16:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 17
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 19:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2:1
 Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 20:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 21:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2148 A
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 22:1
Stray find Stone Age? Perniön museo 25:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 27:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 29:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 30:1
Stray find Bronze Age LNE/EBA Perniön museo 3076
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3080
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3081
Stray find Stone Age MES Perniön museo 3082
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3083
Stray find Iron Age Perniön museo 3090
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3091
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 31:1
Stray find Stone Age BAT Perniön museo 33:1
Stray find Stone Age BAT Perniön museo 35:1
Stray find Bronze Age Perniön museo 37:1
Stray find Undated Perniön museo 38:1
Stray find Undated Perniön museo 39:1
Stray find Undated Perniön museo 40:1
Stray find Undated Perniön museo 41:1
Non-site Undated Perniön museo 43:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 44:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 45:1
Stray find Undated Perniön museo 48:1
Stray find Undated Perniön museo 49:1
Stray find Iron Age Perniön museo 50:1
Stray find Bronze and/or Iron Age Perniön museo 51:1
Stray find Bronze and/or Iron Age Perniön museo 52:1
Stray find Undated Perniön museo 53:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 6:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 7:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 8:1
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 9:1

513
 Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Ac

514
Stray find? Undated Perniön museo Ad
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Ak
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Ar
Stray find Undated Perniön museo Ba
Stray find? Iron Age? Perniön museo Be
Stray find? Iron Age? Perniön museo Bf
Stray find? Iron Age? Perniön museo Bg
Stray find Undated TMM 6416:1
Stray find Undated TMM 6417:1
Aaljoki Stray find Stone Age KM 3106:4
Aaljoki ** 668885 329287 668604 29278 Stray find Stone Age KM 6832:1 Raike 1998
Aaljoki Stray find Stone Age KM 8707:2
Aaljoki Stray find Undated KM 8707:3
Aaljoki Stray find Stone Age TMM/Linderin kokoel­ma 187
Aaljoki Stray find Stone Age TMM 13171:1-3
Aaljoki, Alaskylä ** 668901 329358 668620 29349 Stray find Stone Age KM 6918 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Alatalo ** 669008 329311 668727 29302 Stray find Stone Age? KM 3187:25
Aaljoki, Alkio Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:28
Aaljoki, Kavanderin torppa Stray find Stone Age KM 6800:4
Aaljoki, Knaapila Stray find Stone Age KM 6037:4
Aaljoki, Kraatari ** 668831 329365 668550 29356 Stray find Stone Age KM 3106:7 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Kraatari ** 668885 329287 668604 29278 Stray find Stone Age KM 6037:2 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Kraatarin talo ** 668885 329287 668604 29278 Stray find Iron Age KM 6037:6 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Metsäniittu ** 668885 329287 668604 29278 Stray find Stone Age KM 6800:2 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Metsäniittu ** 668885 329287 668604 29278 Stray find Undated KM 6800:3 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Onnenmäki 1 668917 329273 668636 29264 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aaljoki, Onnenmäki 2 668933 329269 668653 29261 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aaljoki, Onnenmäki 2 668934 329268 668654 29260 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aaljoki, Takapelto ** 669008 329311 668727 29302 Stray find Stone Age KM 8707:1 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Takapelto Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 1:1
Aaljoki, Uustupa Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 3106:2
Aaljoki, Uustupa Stray find Stone Age KM 3106:3
Aaljoki, Värrä ** 668907 329324 668626 29316 Stray find Stone Age KM 3106:1 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Värrä ** 669008 329311 668727 29302 Stray find Stone Age KM 3106:5 Raike 1998
Aaljoki, Värrä ** 669008 329311 668727 29302 Stray find Stone Age KM 3444:3 Raike 1998
 Aaljoki, Värrä ** 668907 329324 668626 29316 Stray find Stone Age KM 6037:1 Raike 1998
Aimontappo, Korven niitty ** 669215 329118 668934 29109 Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:18 Raike 1998
Aimontappo, Kuusimäki ** 669178 329092 668897 29084 Settlement site Stone Age KM 15837; KM 19756:1-6; Salmo 1927; Salmo 1963; Raike Salmo 1980: 18-19
KM 19757; KM 19758:1-2 1998
Aimontappo, Kuusimäki Stray find Stone Age KM 17924:1
Aimontappo, Kuusimäki Stray find Stone Age KM 17924:2
Aimontappo, Kuusimäki Stray find Stone Age KM 17924:3
Aimontappo, Kuusimäki 669145 329055 668864 29046 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 20500
Aimontappo, Rauha ** 669215 329118 668934 29109 Stray find Stone Age KM 6766:2 Raike 1998
Aimontappo, Salminiemi Stray find Stone Age? KM 15810 Salmo 1963
Aimontappo, Salminiemi ** 668980 329077 668699 29069 Stray find Stone Age KM 15810:1-3
Aimontappo, Vuorela ** 668961 329140 668680 29132 Stray find Stone Age KM 8707:4 Raike 1998
Alaspää ** 667555 328891 667275 28883 Stray find Stone Age KM 3444:1-2
Alaspää Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 27 A
Arpala Boat find Undated Perniön museo 2102a
Arpala Stray find Undated Perniön museo 2102b
Arpalahti Stray find Undated KM 51
Arpalahti, Kankare Stray find Bronze Age KM 6795:5 Hackman 1916
Arpalahti, Korven niitty Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:17
Arpalahti, Tervakankare Stray find Stone Age BAT Paarskylän kartano F.K.1
Arpalahti, Tyynelä 669061 328664 668780 28656 Cemetery Iron Age MER, KM 3593:1-12; KM Ailio 1900; Salmo 1927; Cleve Salmo 1980: 62-63, 74
VA 4078:1-48; KM 5441:1-3; 1930; Raike 1998
KM 8707:11-18; KM 9265
Arpalahti, Tyynelä Stray find Iron Age? KM 9119
Arpalahti, Tyynelä Stray find Iron Age MER Perniön museo 54
Arpalahti, Tyynelä Stray find Iron Age MER Perniön museo 55
Arpalahti, Unosi Stray find? Stone Age
Arpalahti, Vähätupa Stray find Iron Age? KM 24549
Arpalahti, Vierniitty Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:149
Arpalahti, Yliskylän hau- 669118 328618 668837 28609 Cemetery Iron Age MER, KM 2912:1-43,44-132; KM Salmo 1927; Appelgren 1897; Salmo 1980: 58-62, 84-88
tausmaa VA, CP 2939:1-3; KM 3106:25-33; Raike 1998
KM 13199; KM 13248:1-3;
KM 17381
Arpalahti, Yliskylän 669118 328618 668837 28609 Stray find Iron Age LRA KM 2912:44 Hackman 1905: 33, Atlas 1:9
hautausmaa
Asteljoki Undefined pit site Undated
Asteljoki, Asteljoen kartano 668244 328726 667963 28718 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1964; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Asteljoki, Hiettaronmäki 668257 328897 667977 28889 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

515
 Asteljoki, Hiettaronmäki 668253 328891 667972 28882 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998

516
Asteljoki, Hiettaronmäki 668250 328889 667969 28880 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Asteljoki, Hiettaronmäki 668248 328891 667967 28882 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998
Asteljoki, Hiettaronmäki 668245 328887 667964 28879 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998
Asteljoki, Jokiharju 668367 328882 668087 28874 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ervelä Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 3469
Ervelä, Antinmäki 668458 328989 668178 28981 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ervelä, Antinmäki 668417 328955 668136 28947 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ervelä, Antinmäki 668427 328953 668146 28944 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ervelä, Asteljoki Boat find Undated KM 5683:1-5
Ervelä, Kaukonpyöli 668411 329132 668130 29124 Stray find Stone Age KM 21890
Germundsvedja Stray find Iron Age Salmo 1980: 52-53
Germundsvedja Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 18:1
Germundsvedja Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 5:1
Germundsvedja, 668081 327175 667801 27168 Stray find Iron Age KM 20323
Alkoholistihuoltola
Germundsvedja, Slottkärr Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3:1,
Perniön museo 4:1
Germundsvedja, 667877 327168 667597 27160 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Takaniitunkallio
Germundsvedja, 667973 327094 667692 27086 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Viikinkivuori
Germundsvedja, 667971 327116 667690 27108 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Viikinkivuori
Germundsvedja, Viksberg ** 668080 327193 667800 27186 Stray find Stone Age KM 3104:1
Haarla, Grönbacka Stray find Undated Perniön museo 1501
Haarla, Niemi Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Af
Haarla, Ruoksuo Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA Perniön museo 36:1
Haarla, Susi ** 668237 328456 667957 28448 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 15503 Salmo 1980: 80-81
Haaroinen, Rinne ** 668757 329346 668476 29338 Stray find Undated KM 6832:3 Raike 1998
Hirvilahti Stray find Undated KM 23228
Hirvilahti, Huusla Stray find? Stone Age
Huhti ** 668477 329003 668196 28995 Mound Undated Salmo 1927
Huhti ** 668477 329003 668196 28995 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927
Huhti ** 668477 329003 668196 28995 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927
Huhti ** 668477 329003 668196 28995 Mound Undated Salmo 1927
Huhti ** 668477 329003 668196 28995 Mound Undated Salmo 1927
 Huhti ** 668477 329003 668196 28995 Mound Undated Salmo 1927
Huhti ** 668477 329003 668196 28995 Stray find Undated KM 3444:44 Salmo 1927
Huhti Stray find Iron Age KM 6129:5
Huhti, Antinmäki 668458 328989 668178 28981 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Huhti, Antinmäki 668457 328990 668177 28982 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Huhti, Varemäki 668494 329016 668214 29007 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Huhti, Varemäki 668495 329017 668214 29008 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hämeenkylä, Härkähaka Stray find Stone Age KM 9591:1
Hämeenkylä, Kalliola Stray find Stone Age KM 16747
Hämeenkylä, Kätkynmäki Stray find Stone Age KM 9591:3
Hämeenkylä, Kirkola Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 24:1
Hämeenkylä, Kivelä Stray find Stone Age KM 14544
Hämeenkylä, Nummila Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 123
Iso-Kestrikki, Leikkonen Stray find Undated KM 16144
Isopappila Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2203:1;
Perniön museo 2204:1
Kakola Stray find Undated KM 8707:5
Kakola, Saarinen Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 26:1
Kalliomäki Stray find Stone Age KM 27733
Kantola ** 668466 329412 668185 29404 Stray find Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 12022
Kestrikki, Leikkonen 1 667700 328414 667420 28406 Cemetery Iron Age KM 30656:1-5 Raike 1998
Kestrikki, Leikkonen 2 667669 328406 667388 28398 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30657:1 Raike 1998
Kettukankare Undefined Iron Age? KM 30642
Ketunkankare Undefined Iron Age? KM 30659
Ketunpyöli Stray find Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 10920
Ketunpyöli * 668706 328979 668425 28970 Stray find Stone Age LNE/EBA Perniön museo 3641
Kieronperä 669235 328915 668954 28907 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä 669201 328734 668920 28725 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä 669202 328736 668921 28727 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä 669220 328727 668939 28719 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä 669222 328727 668941 28718 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä 669227 328724 668946 28715 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä, Kansakoulu Stray find Historical Period KM 6915:2
Kieronperä, Kieronperä 1 669175 328754 668894 28746 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä, Kieronperä 2 669183 328753 668902 28744 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kieronperä, Kieronperä 2 669185 328751 668904 28743 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

517
 Kirjakkala Stray find Stone Age TMM 13234

518
Kirjakkala, Onnelannummi 669031 327930 668751 27922 Stone oven Historical Period Asplund 1992; Raike 1998
Kirjakkala, Tattaroistenmäki 669278 327778 668997 27770 Cairn Bronze Age KM 3618:1; KM 4079:1-3 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Salmo 1980: 36, 38; Tuovinen
& Vuorinen 1992
Kivelä 668149 328195 667868 28187 Cairn? Iron Age? Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kivelä 668155 328192 667875 28184 Cemetery? Iron Age? KM 4464:1-2 Sirelius 1902; Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kivelä, Uusitalo 668133 328147 667853 28139 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998
Kivelä, Vaarnummi 668118 328154 667837 28146 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kivelä, Vaarnummi 668118 328155 667837 28147 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kivelä, Vaarnummi 668118 328150 667837 28142 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kivelä, Vaarnummi 668132 328149 667851 28141 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kivelä, Vaarnummi 668121 328152 667840 28144 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 6129:1-4 Ailio 1912; Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Salmo 1980: 37; Tuovinen &
Vuorinen 1992
Knaapila Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2803:1
Knaapila Stray find Stone Age BAT Perniön museo At
Knaapila, Harjula Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 1691
Knaapila, Marjakankare Stray find? Stone Age
Knaapila, Mäntylä 668743 329269 668462 29260 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Knaapila, Tamminummi 668742 329157 668461 29149 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Tamminummi 668742 329156 668461 29148 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Tamminummi 668742 329157 668461 29149 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Tamminummi 668738 329160 668457 29152 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Knaapila, Uusitupa Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:20
Knaapila, Varemäki 668755 329267 668474 29259 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Varemäki 668754 329267 668473 29259 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Varemäki 668753 329269 668472 29260 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Varemäki 668753 329269 668472 29260 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Varemäki 668741 329271 668460 29262 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Knaapila, Varemäki 668753 329267 668472 29258 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Salmo 1980: Kuva 22;
Salonen 1929; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Knaapila, Varemäki 668743 329267 668462 29258 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
 Knaapila, Varemäki Stray find Undated KM 10398
Knaapila, Varemäki 668753 329267 668472 29258 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 10579:1-3 Europaeus 1924; Salmo 1927; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kivikoski 1937; Raike 1998
Knaapila, Varemäki 668753 329267 668472 29258 Cairn? Undated KM 8612:1-3 Europaeus 1924; Tallgren 1925; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Koivisto, Kirisoja ** 668017 328803 667737 28795 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 6766:1
Koivisto, Vähätalo ** 668004 328927 667723 28918 Stray find Stone Age KM 6026:1
Kokkila Stray find Stone Age KM 14589
Kokkila, Hakala Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 9138:2 Cleve 1930; Pälsi 1930
Kokkila, Hakala Stray find Stone Age KM 9151:1
Kokkila, Hakala Stray find Undated KM 9151:2
Kokkila, Hakala Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 9193:1-2 Cleve 1930; Pälsi 1930
Kokkila, Hakala Stray find Stone Age KM 9193:3
Korttila 668205 329136 667925 29127 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Alitalo 668220 329145 667939 29136 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Korttila, Alitalo 668220 329146 667939 29137 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Korttila, Rajamäki 668225 329145 667944 29136 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Rajamäki 668225 329145 667944 29136 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Rajamäki 668229 329143 667948 29135 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Rajamäki 668234 329143 667953 29135 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Rajamäki 668233 329139 667953 29131 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Rajamäki 668235 329139 667955 29131 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Rajamäki 668235 329140 667955 29132 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korttila, Rajamäki 668236 329140 667956 29132 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Korvenkylä, Ahjo ** 669281 328766 669000 28758 Stray find Stone Age KM 15835:1-2 Salmo 1963; Raike 1998
Koski Stray find Stone Age KM 6302:5
Koski Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3085
Koski Stray find Undated Perniön museo 3088
Koski, Kansakoulu Stray find Undated Perniön museo 2093
Koski, Kollarla Stray find Stone Age KM 2794:52
Koski, Myllylahti ** 668214 329497 667933 29488 Stray find Undated KM 6357:1
Kouvola, Uusiniitty ** 668521 328463 668241 28455 Stray find Stone Age KM 8707:6
Kuhminen 669037 328674 668756 28666 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kuhminen 668981 328655 668701 28646 Clearance cairn Historical Period Raike 1998
Kuhminen Stray find Stone Age BAT F. Kaarlosen yksityis­kokoelma
Kuhminen Stray find Stone Age KM 6795:1

519
 Kuhminen Stray find Stone Age KM 6795:3

520
Kuhminen, Antlanpelto 669050 328652 668769 28643 Settlement site Iron Age KM 24547:1-9; KM 30643 Poutiainen 1989; Raike 1998
Kuhminen, Anttila Cairn? Undated Salmo 1927
Kuhminen, Anttila Stray find Stone Age KM 3315:55
Kuhminen, Anttila ** 669002 328868 668721 28859 Stray find Iron Age KM 3444:5 Raike 1998
Kuhminen, Anttila Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 8708:1
Kuhminen, Huvimäki Stray find Undated KM 14166
Kuhminen, Kankare Stray find Stone Age KM 17043
Kuhminen, Kankare Stray find Stone Age KM 6795:2
Kuhminen, Kankare Stray find Undated Perniön museo 3089
Kuhminen, Kulla 668989 328619 668708 28610 Stray find Iron Age KM 24546:1-4 Raike 1998
Kuhminen, Laurila Stray find Stone Age KM 11785
Kuhminen, Laurila Stray find Stone Age KM 14167
Kuhminen, Linnamäki 668976 329002 668695 28993 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kuhminen, Linnamäki 668974 329001 668693 28992 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kuhminen, Linnamäki 668974 329003 668693 28994 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kuhminen, Linnamäki 668972 329002 668691 28993 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kuhminen, Linnamäki 668973 329001 668692 28992 Hillfort? Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Salmo 1980: 94
Kumionpää Stray find Iron Age KM 2912:156
Kumionpää, Alitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:139
Kumionpää, Muuraissuo Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:153
Kyynämäki Stray find Stone Age KM 3315:53
Kyynämäki, Isotalo 667849 328533 667569 28525 Undefined Undated KM 3315:52 Appelgren 1896; Salmo 1927;
Raike 1998
Kyynärä Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2026
Laiterla, Laiterlan koulu Stray find Stone Age BAT Perniön museo 3640
Laitila Stray find Historical Period KM 3315:58
Lapparla 668154 328908 667873 28900 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lapparla 668173 328926 667892 28918 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lapparla, Hiettaronmäki 668235 328932 667954 28924 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lapparla, Isonummenahde 668154 328927 667873 28919 Mound? Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lapparla, Isonummenahde 668154 328927 667873 28919 Mound? Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lapparla, Isonummenahde 668154 328927 667873 28919 Cairn? Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lapparla, Isonummenahde 668153 328915 667873 28907 Mound? Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Latokartano, Maasilta Stray find Stone Age KM 2794:18
Latokartano, Maasilta Stray find Stone Age KM 2794:24
 Latokartano, 667439 328701 667159 28692 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ryssäntorninmäki
Lehtiniitty Stray find Stone Age KM 11391:1-2
Lemu Stray find Stone Age KM 4102:1
Lemu Stray find Stone Age KM 9168
Lemu, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3077
Lemu, Palteila Stray find Bronze Age KM 13774:1-2
Lemu, Tyystö Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 1689
Lemu, Tyystö Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 1690
Lemunkartano, Hyypiän- 668372 329129 668091 29120 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980;
mäki Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Hyypiän- 668376 329124 668096 29115 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980;
mäki Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Hyypiän- 668376 329123 668096 29114 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980;
mäki Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Hyypiän- 668375 329122 668095 29113 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980;
mäki Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Hyypiän- 668374 329123 668094 29114 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980;
mäki Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668366 329048 668085 29040 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lähdesmäki 1980; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668380 329070 668099 29061 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668377 329068 668096 29059 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668365 329054 668085 29046 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Läh- Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
desmäki & Salo 1982; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668367 329051 668087 29043 Undefined Undated Lähdesmäki 1980; Lähdesmäki & Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ruotsalainen 1982; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668383 329072 668102 29063 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668382 329062 668101 29053 Undefined Undated Lähdesmäki 1980; Lähdesmäki &
Ruotsalainen 1982; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668365 329046 668084 29038 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980;
Lähdesmäki & Ruotsalainen 1982;
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668367 329051 668086 29042 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Lähdesmäki 1980; Lähdesmäki &
Ruotsalainen 1982; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668383 329067 668102 29058 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 158:1-13 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998

521
 Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668363 329050 668083 29042 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 158:14-18 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992

522
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668366 329047 668085 29039 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 158:19-65 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668366 329047 668085 29039 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 158:66-70 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668368 329053 668088 29045 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 174:1-16 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lähdesmäki 1980; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668368 329052 668088 29044 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 174:17-31 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lähdesmäki 1980; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668366 329049 668085 29041 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 174:32-54 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980;
Lähdesmäki 1980; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668365 329050 668085 29042 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 174:55-75 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lähdesmäki 1980; Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668366 329046 668085 29038 Settlement site Early Metal Period LBA, TYA 174:76-77; TYA 196:­ Lähdesmäki & Ruotsalainen 1982; Lähdesmäki 1983; Läh-
PRIA 52-80; TYA 207:137-202 Raike 1998 desmäki 1987
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668367 329051 668087 29043 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 196:1-51; TYA 417 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lähdesmäki & Ruotsalainen 1982;
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, Lehmihaka 668366 329046 668085 29038 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age TYA 207:1-136 Salmo 1927; Lähdesmäki 1980; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lähdesmäki & Ruotsalainen 1982;
Raike 1998
Lemunkartano, 668306 329118 668026 29109 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pajapakankankare
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668235 329142 667955 29134 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668238 329140 667958 29132 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668240 329140 667960 29131 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668240 329140 667960 29131 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668240 329139 667960 29130 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668242 329137 667962 29128 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668243 329136 667963 29127 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668244 329137 667964 29128 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkartano, Rajakallio 668245 329154 667964 29145 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunkylä, Suulpakan­kankare 668303 329130 668022 29122 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lemunsuo 668247 329077 667966 29068 Pollen sample site Vuorela 1985
Liiri 667921 328698 667640 28690 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja Cup-marked stone? Iron Age? Salmo 1980: 93
Lupaja Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2025:8
Lupaja Stray find Iron Age? KM 3104:22
Lupaja, Horttomäki 668098 328715 667818 28707 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Lupaja, Horttomäki 668098 328713 667818 28705 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Horttomäki 668100 328716 667820 28707 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Karpinmäki 668025 328580 667745 28572 Undefined Undated Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Karpinmäki 1 668043 328530 667762 28521 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Karpinmäki 1 668044 328529 667763 28520 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Karpinmäki 2 668037 328546 667756 28538 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Prestkullanmäki 668163 328590 667882 28582 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Prestkullanmäki 668164 328589 667884 28581 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Lupaja, Rantala 1 668005 328574 667724 28566 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Salmo 1927; Salmo 1955; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Rantala 2 668000 328567 667719 28558 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Salmo 1955; Raike 1998 Salmo 1980: 93
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667954 328562 667674 28553 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667966 328557 667686 28549 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998

523
 Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 667954 328569 667673 28560 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998

524
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi* 668002 328559 667722 28551 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667956 328559 667676 28550 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi Stray find Historical Period KM 29608
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi Undefined Iron Age? KM 30302
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667962 328564 667681 28556 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 3106: 9-13 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Hackman 1905: 26; Salmo
1980: 49-50
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667954 328569 667673 28560 Mound? Iron Age? KM 3106:8 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667965 328566 667684 28558 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 3720:1-155 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Hackman 1905: Fig. 14, 26-
32; Salmo 1980: 49-50
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667969 328557 667689 28549 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 3720:156-167 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Hackman 1905: 32-33
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667998 328550 667717 28541 Cemetery? Iron Age LRA KM 3720:218-220 Hackman 1905: 33
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi Stray find Undated KM 3720:221
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667954 328568 667674 28560 Cemetery Iron Age MER, KM 7752:1-60; KM 30441 Salmo 1927; Salmo 1955; Asplund Salmo 1980: 68
VA 1996; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi Stray find Iron Age VA KM 8582 Salmo 1980: 81-82
Lupaja, Tiikkinummi 667948 328595 667668 28587 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 9191:1-3 Salmo 1980: 81-82
Lupaja, Uusitalo 668010 328591 667729 28583 Undefined Undated LRA Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Uusitalo 668010 328591 667729 28583 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Uusitalo 668010 328591 667729 28583 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Uusitalo 668010 328591 667729 28583 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Uusitalo 668010 328591 667729 28583 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Lupaja, Uusitalo 668025 328602 667745 28594 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, KM 3720:168-206 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Hackman 1905: 24-26; Salmo
MIG 1980: 51
Lupaja, Uusitalo 668009 328594 667728 28586 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 3720:207-217 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Hackman 1905: 23-24; Salmo
1980: 50-51
Mathildedal Stray find Stone Age? KM 25786
Mathildedal Stray find Stone Age KM 2794:68
Matilda, Matilda 1 668418 327526 668137 27518 Stray find Stone Age KM
Matilda, Matilda 2 668393 327528 668112 27520 Stray find Stone Age KM
Matilda, Matilda 3 668386 327534 668106 27526 Stray find Stone Age KM
Matilda, Matilda 4 668381 327537 668101 27530 Stray find Stone Age KM
Matilda, Matilda A 668409 327534 668129 27526 Settlement site? Stone Age KM
Matilda, Matilda B 668429 327576 668148 27568 Settlement site? Stone Age KM
Matinkylä Stray find Stone Age KM 10126:3
Melkkilä, Kivikankare Stray find Iron Age? KM 28695
Merihuhti Stray find Stone Age KM 3104:3
 Metsänoja Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 28:1
Metsänoja, Yrjännummi Stray find Stone Age? KM 26579
Mustasaari, Kaukari Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:21
Mutainen 669229 327926 668948 27918 Settlement site Stone Age CC KM 15251:1-30; KM Meinander 1961; Raike 1998 Salmo 1980: 21-25
15255:1; KM 15256; KM
15491:1-112; KM 26413;
Perniön museo 2506
Mutainen Stray find Stone Age KM 15255:1
Mutainen Stray find Stone Age KM 20441:1-6
Mutainen Stray find Stone Age BAT Perniön museo 34:1
Mutainen, Rantakallio Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3079
Mutainen, Rantakallio Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3087
Mylpakan torppa Stray find Undated Perniön museo 3078
Mäkisauru 668694 328510 668413 28502 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Raike 1998
Mäkisauru 668694 328510 668413 28502 Cemetery? Iron Age Raike 1998
Mäkisauru 668694 328510 668413 28502 Settlement site? Iron Age and/or KM 24554 Raike 1998
Medieval
Mäkisauru Undefined Iron Age? KM 30658
Mäkisauru, Iso-Perhe 668717 328546 668436 28538 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 30641 Raike 1998
Mälkilä, Sivinaho 668129 328360 667849 28352 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Mälkilä, Sivinaho 668131 328361 667851 28353 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Mälkkilä 668131 328365 667851 28357 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mälkkilä 668132 328362 667852 28354 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nakola ** 668358 329009 668078 29000 Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 12069
Nokipelto Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:26
Nurkkila Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age Perniön museo 46:1
Nurkkila Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age Perniön museo 47:1
Nurkkila, Alastalo Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 3104:8
Nurkkila, Alastalo Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 3104:9
Osala 667778 328559 667497 28550 Cemetery? Iron Age? Salmo 1945; Raike 1998 Salmo 1980: 49
Osala 667776 328557 667496 28548 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 11233:1-9 Salmo 1945; Raike 1998 Salmo 1980: 49, Kuva 32-33
Osala, Nybacka 667777 328557 667497 28548 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Osala, Nybacka 667777 328557 667497 28548 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Paarskylä Stray find Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 2025:10
Paarskylä, Hepohaanmäki 1 668614 329026 668333 29018 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Paarskylä, Hepohaanmäki 2 668613 328998 668333 28990 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Paarskylä, Holminalusta Stray find Stone Age KM 10013

525
 Paarskylä, Hossanpelto Stray find Stone Age KM 9283:1

526
Paarskylä, Isoniitty Stray find Stone Age KM 9374
Paarskylä, Kanturböle Stray find Iron Age KM 8708:2
Paarskylä, Kataviston 668816 328599 668535 28591 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 9859
pelto **
Paarskylä, Lehtiniitty Stray find Stone Age KM 11185
Paarskylä, Lehtiniitty Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:22
Paarskylä, Lepistö Stray find Iron Age MER F. F. Kaarlosen kokoelma
Paarskylä, Lepistö 668868 328634 668587 28626 Cemetery Iron Age MIG, KM 8533:1-9; KM 9284 Salmo 1927; Poutiainen 1989; Salmo 1980: 53-55, 57, 64
MER Raike 1998
Paarskylä, Muuraissuo Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:152
Paarskylä, Paarskylän Undefined pit site Undated Appelgren 1897
kartano
Paarskylä, Paarskylän Stray find Iron Age CP KM 10794
kartano
Paarskylä, Paarskylän 668805 328662 668524 28654 Stray find? Stone and/or Bronze KM 10795:40 Voionmaa & Leppäaho 1938
kartano Age
Paarskylä, Paarskylän 668805 328662 668524 28654 Cemetery Iron Age MER, KM 577; KM 2912:162,164-205; Appelgren 1896; Appelgren Salmo 1980: 65-67, 76-80
kartano VA, CP KM 3106:14-24; KM 3187:51; 1896; Appelgren 1897; Salmo
KM 3315:1-51; KM 8846; 1927; Voionmaa & Leppäaho
KM 10795:1-39,41-110; KM 1938; Salmo 1940; Keskitalo 1966;
11252:1-98; KM 17137:1-56 Raike 1998
Paarskylä, Pajanpelto Stray find Stone Age KM 12528
Paarskylä, Puolamäki Stray find Stone Age KM 8707:8
Paarskylä, Sahanpelto ** 668823 328649 668543 28641 Stray find Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 11194:1
Paarskylä, Sahanpelto Stray find Undated KM 11194:2
Paarskylä, Sahanpelto ** 668823 328648 668543 28640 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 11253:1-2 Salmo 1980: 79-80
Paarskylä, Sahanpelto ** 668831 328620 668550 28611 Stray find Iron Age KM 13404 Salmo 1980: Kuva 64, 90
Paarskylä, Sahanpelto Stray find Undated KM 9283:2
Paarskylä, Sauru ** 668808 328599 668527 28590 Stray find Iron Age MER KM 9981
Pappila Stray find Stone Age KM 1119
Pappila, Ikäkiven pelto ** 668328 328536 668047 28527 Stray find Iron Age KM 2912:157
Pappila, Tammelin 668368 328537 668087 28529 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 7069:1-3 Salmo 1980: 80
Penttilä, Hakamäki 668143 328312 667862 28304 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Penttilä, Hakamäki 668142 328312 667861 28304 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Penttilä, Kruuvankankare 668129 328318 667849 28310 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Penttilä, Kruuvankankare 668132 328316 667852 28308 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Salmo 1929; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Penttilä, Penttilä 1 668155 328317 667875 28309 Cairn? Undated Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Penttilä, Penttilä 3 668133 328360 667853 28351 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pohjankartano Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:148
Pohjankartano Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:23
Pohjankartano, Lehtikankare Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:146
Pohjankartano, Lindströmin Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:137
torppa
Pohjankartano, Masurinpelto Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:133
Pohjankartano, Rajapakan Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:134
torppa
Pohjankartano, Sillanpää Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:147
Pohjankylä Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:20
Pohjankylä Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:24
Pohjankylä Stray find Stone Age KM 9207:3-5
Pohjankylä, Aurasen torppa Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:151
Pohjankylä, Halla Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2072
Pohjankylä, Halla Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2073
Pohjankylä, Hamarinkoski Stray find Iron Age? KM 24555
Pohjankylä, Kuukallio 669453 328468 669172 28459 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pohjankylä, Nirva Stray find Stone Age KM 9076
Pohjankylä, Pohjan kartano Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Ag
Pohjankylä, Risamäki Stray find Iron Age? KM 24556
Pohjankylä, Rysspakan mäki Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:145
Preitti, Preitti 1 667592 328320 667312 28312 Settlement site Iron Age KM 30644:1-11 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 10 667609 328336 667328 28327 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30653:1-6 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 11 667609 328336 667328 28327 Settlement site? Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30654:1-2 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 12 667562 328320 667282 28311 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30655:1-2 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 2 667598 328324 667318 28316 Settlement site Iron Age KM 30645:1-6 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 3 667585 328307 667305 28298 Settlement site Iron Age KM 30646:1-8 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 4 667595 328303 667315 28295 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30647:1-2 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 5 667636 328329 667356 28321 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30648:1-4 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 6 667633 328321 667353 28313 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30649:1-10 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 7 667632 328318 667351 28309 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30650:1-3 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 8 667627 328305 667347 28297 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30651:1-4 Raike 1998
Preitti, Preitti 9 667616 328320 667336 28312 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 30652:1-3 Raike 1998
Päärinen, Erkintalo 668904 328611 668623 28603 Settlement site Iron Age KM 25348:1-5 Raike 1998
Päärinen, Hakala 668838 328534 668557 28525 Settlement site Stone Age KM 30640:1-2 Raike 1998

527
 Päärinen, Ketunkankare 668904 328603 668623 28595 Mound Iron Age? Salmo 1958; Raike 1998

528
Päärinen, Ketunkankare 668899 328609 668618 28600 Undefined pit site Undated Salmo 1958; Salmo 1959
Päärinen, Ketunkankare Stray find Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 11058 Salmo 1980: Kuva 37
Päärinen, Pihlajamäki 668955 328589 668674 28581 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Voionmaa 1938; Poutiainen 1989; Salmo 1980: 93
Raike 1998
Päärinen, Riihimäki 668899 328609 668618 28600 Cemetery Iron Age MER, KM 14471:1-3; KM Salmo 1958; Salmo 1959; Raike Salmo 1980: 64-65, 74-76
VA 14621:1-158; KM 15336 1998
Pääris Stray find Stone Age KM 21920:1
Pääris Stray find Undated KM 21920:2
Radanvarsi 669140 328570 668859 28561 Stray find? Iron Age Raike 1998
Skoila ** 668079 327613 667799 27605 Stray find Undated KM 3104:7
Skoila Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 1651
Skoila, Brokärr ** 668079 327613 667799 27605 Stray find Stone Age KM 3104:2
Skoila, Isorahka 668245 327587 667964 27579 Settlement site Stone Age KM 25785 Brusila 1990; Raike 1998
Skoila, Itätalo 668114 327643 667833 27636 Cairn? Undated Raike 1998
Sormijärvi Stray find Stone Age KM 4163:5
Sormijärvi, Kuuttasuo Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:19
Sormijärvi, Puolamäki 668734 328960 668453 28951 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sormijärvi, Puolamäki 668736 328957 668456 28948 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sormijärvi, Puolamäki 668737 328957 668457 28948 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sormijärvi, Puolamäki 668742 328964 668461 28956 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sormijärvi, Puolamäki 668734 328958 668453 28949 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sormijärvi, Puolamäki Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 4163:6
Sormijärvi, Puolamäki Stray find Stone Age KM 4163:7
Sormijärvi, Sällylä Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 4163:1-4
Sormijärvi, Sällylä ** 668837 329019 668556 29011 Stray find Stone Age KM 8707:9
Sormijärvi, Varemäki 668865 329011 668584 29002 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Strömma Stray find Stone Age KM 25339
Strömma Stray find Undated KM 3104:6
Strömma, Sandåkern ** 668107 327279 667826 27271 Stray find Iron Age KM 23042
Suksenböle 668137 328624 667857 28616 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 28170:1-4 Bilund 1994; Raike 1998
Suomenkylä 668544 329097 668263 29089 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä 668546 329091 668265 29083 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä 668544 329097 668263 29089 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä 668535 329080 668255 29071 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä 668535 329079 668255 29070 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Suomenkylä 668533 329078 668253 29069 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä 668536 329079 668256 29070 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä Stray find Stone Age KM 6037:3
Suomenkylä, Lampola Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:24
Suomenkylä, Lampola Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:25
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668508 329179 668227 29170 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668492 329169 668212 29161 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668489 329168 668209 29159 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668487 329166 668207 29157 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668487 329166 668207 29157 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668486 329167 668206 29158 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668475 329163 668194 29155 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668468 329169 668188 29160 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668467 329170 668187 29161 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668457 329166 668177 29158 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Leuarinmäki 668477 329181 668196 29173 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Ritanummi 668468 329127 668187 29118 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Ritanummi 668470 329126 668190 29118 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Ritanummi 668473 329125 668193 29117 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Ritanummi 668473 329131 668192 29123 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Ritanummi 668480 329099 668200 29091 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Tuomolanhaka 668502 329127 668221 29119 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Tuomolanhaka 668503 329128 668222 29119 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Tuomolanhaka 668503 329129 668222 29120 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Suomenkylä, Tuomolanhaka 668498 329125 668218 29117 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Teijo Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2456
Teijo Stray find Undated Perniön museo 2457
Teijo Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Aa
Teijo Stray find Undated Teijon kansakoulu
Teijo, Kansakoulu Stray find Iron Age Perniön museo 1502
Teijo, Kausmosasuo Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 127
Teijo, Kirakanjärvi 668299 327638 668018 27630 Stone oven Historical Period Asplund 1992; Raike 1998
Teijo, Lakiassuo 668386 327615 668105 27607 Stone oven Historical Period Asplund 1992; Raike 1998
Teijo, Lankkeri Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 128
Teijo, Pellonpää Stray find Stone Age Teijon kansakoulu
Teijo, Punassuo 668516 328037 668235 28029 Stone oven Historical Period Asplund 1992

529
 Teijo, Rivolanmäki Stray find Undated KM 12419

530
Teijo, Teijon kirkkomäki Stray find Historical Period TYA 185:1
Tilkkala Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 12026
Tilkkala 668340 329323 668059 29315 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 14588:1-7 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tilkkala 668345 329324 668064 29315 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 14588:1-7 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tilkkala Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 2148
Torkila 668286 329210 668006 29201 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Torkila, Uutela 668255 329158 667975 29150 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Torkila, Varemäki 668303 329232 668023 29223 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Torkila, Varemäki 668309 329230 668029 29221 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Torkila, Yhteismetsä 668286 329209 668006 29200 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tottola Stray find Undated KM 25349
Tuohittu Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM / Linderin kokoel­ma 181
Tuohittu Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoel­ma 182
Tuohittu Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoel­ma 191
Tuohittu Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoel­ma 192
Tuohittu Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoel­ma 194
Tuohittu Stray find Stone Age TMM / Linderin kokoel­ma 195
Tuohittu, Hannu ** 669207 329294 668926 29285 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2912:144 Raike 1998
Tuohittu, Koivula 669179 329607 668898 29598 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salmo 1927; Raike 1998 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tuohittu, Koivula Stray find Stone Age KM 6832:2
Tuohittu, Naarjärven saari 669184 329536 668903 29527 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 2912:140-141 Salmo 1927; Raike 1998
Tuohittu, Naarjärvi Stray find Undated KM 2912:163
Tuohittu, Pietilä Stray find Early Metal Period KM 7173
Tuohittu, Pietilä Stray find Undated KM 8707:10
Tuohittu, Pieto Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:16
Tuohittu, Pieto Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:17
Tuohittu, Pieto Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:18
Tuohittu, Pieto Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:154
Tuohittu, Saloniemi ** 669286 329526 669005 29517 Stray find Iron Age KM 6915:1
Tuulihattu 661531 328527 661253 28519 Stray find Stone Age KM 21891
Uusiniitty Stray find Stone Age KM 11316:2
Vaivaistalo Stray find Stone Age KM 3104:5
Vihiniemi Stray find Stone Age KM 9152
Vihiniemi, Aspen Stray find Stone Age KM 8984:3
Vihiniemi, Koski Stray find Stone Age KM 10045:2
 Vihiniemi, Kupparinkoski Stray find Stone Age KM 14575:1-2
Vihiniemi, Törmä Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Aj
Viipuri, Aateliskankare 667779 328229 667498 28221 Undefined Undated Salmo 1927; Asplund 1992
Viipuri, Kallela 667844 328238 667563 28230 Pit-trap? Historical Period Asplund 1992; Raike 1998
Viipuri, Lundelin 667777 328229 667496 28221 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Väärlä, Alitalo Stray find Stone Age? KM 14192
Väärlä, Pohjanrinne Stray find Stone Age KM 14474
Yliskylä 669124 328583 668843 28575 Cemetery? Iron Age? Raike 1998
Yliskylä Stray find Iron Age? KM 24552
Yliskylä Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 23:1
Yliskylä, Ajon haka Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3084
Yliskylä, Ketunkankare Stray find Iron Age VA KM 16632 Raike 1998
Yliskylä, Ketunkankare 669183 328586 668902 28577 Settlement site Iron Age KM 24553:1-5 Raike 1998
Yliskylä, Matsuo 669191 328578 668910 28570 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 25347:1-4 Poutiainen 1989; Raike 1998
Yliskylä, Ristinkulma Stray find Iron Age? KM 24548
Yliskylä, Öfverbygård 1 669135 328591 668854 28583 Cup-marked Iron Age Poutiainen 1989; Poutiainen 1989;
stone Raike 1998
Yliskylä, Öfverbygård 1 669135 328591 668854 28583 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 24550:1-2 Poutiainen 1989; Poutiainen 1989;
Raike 1998
Yliskylä, Öfverbygård 2 669137 328579 668856 28571 Cup-marked Iron Age Poutiainen 1989; Poutiainen 1989;
stone Raike 1998
Yliskylä, Öfverbygård 2 669137 328579 668856 28571 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 24545:1-4 Poutiainen 1989; Poutiainen 1989;
Raike 1998
Yliskylä, Öfverbygård 3 669147 328590 668866 28582 Settlement site? Iron Age VA KM 16633; KM 24551:1-5 Raike 1998
Öyrilä Stray find Stone Age KM 3163:14
Öyrilä, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age KM 6905:6
Öyrilä, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo Ah
Öyrilä, Vähätalo ** 668604 329395 668324 29386 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2912:138
Öyrilä, Vähätalo ** 668604 329395 668324 29386 Stray find Stone Age KM 6409:3

531
532
Pertteli
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 10014 Pukkila 2002
Stray find Bronze Age KM 8837:124 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä Stray find Stone Age Hähkänän koulu Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä Stray find Stone Age MES KM 2025:3 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Ali-Arkkila 670978 329248 670696 29240 Settlement site Stone Age MES KM 16786; Perttelin museo Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Haankorpi 670807 329299 670525 29290 Stray find Stone Age Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Hiidenmäki 670682 329186 670400 29177 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Hiirla 670730 329231 670448 29222 Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Iimetsä Stray find Iron Age? KM 6704:4 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Mäkimaa 670813 329222 670532 29213 Stray find Stone Age MES KM 16784:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Mustakorpi 670771 329423 670490 29414 Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Myllö 670727 329254 670445 29245 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 9175 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Niittymäki 670749 329324 670467 29315 Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Palomäki 670641 329287 670360 29278 Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Ristnummi 670863 329252 670581 29243 Undefined pit site Historical Period? Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Sotjonkrotti 670881 329323 670599 29314 Stray find Iron Age KM 6578:3 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Venhekarppi 670583 329543 670301 29534 Settlement site Stone Age KM 33190:1-4 Pukkila 2002
Hähkänä, Yli-Arkkila 670869 329355 670588 29347 Stray find Stone Age MES KM 6589:3; KM 33196:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Inkere Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:16
Inkere, Ali-Suutari 670960 329506 670678 29497 Stray find Undated KM 16770; KM 33197:1; Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Perttelin museo
Inkere, Haavankanto 670775 329838 670494 29829 Settlement site? Stone Age TMM 6791; KM 33198:1 Pukkila 2002
Inkere, Holmen Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo 1128 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Inkere, Kalkkimäki 670835 329829 670553 29820 Quarry Historical Period Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Inkere, Karistoja 670706 329579 670424 29571 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Inkere, Kotaniitty 670938 329501 670656 29492 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo Huurre 1965
Inkere, Muovitehdas 670804 329545 670522 29536 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16771; KM 33188:1-6 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Inkere, Pajari 670944 329491 670663 29482 Cemetery? Iron Age CP KM 12387; KM 16769:1-5; Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
KM 33193:1
Inkere, Pajarin Kotoniittu 670933 329491 670652 29482 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 4403:1-2; KM 16769:6-8 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Inkere, Toramäki 671008 329544 670726 29535 Inscription Historical Period Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Inkere, Yhteismaa 670763 329553 670482 29544 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16772; 16773:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Iso-Hiisi, Metsäniemi 671130 329792 670848 29783 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
 Iso-Hiisi, Metsäniemi 671141 329783 670860 29774 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo 511 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Iso-Hiisi, Sippari 671135 329830 670853 29821 Stray find Stone Age MES KM 10741:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Iso-Hiisi, Sippari 671163 329797 670881 29789 Stray find Stone Age KM 16783 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Iso-Hiisi, Ylhäinen 671096 329981 670815 29972 Stray find Undated Perttelin museo 1545 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaivola ** 671020 329336 670738 29328 Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaivola Stray find Stone Age KM 2025:9 Pukkila 2002
Kaivola Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:14 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaivola, Ali-Kauko 670999 329343 670718 29335 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 16767 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaivola, Kirkko 670987 329386 670706 29377 Stray find? Iron Age? Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaivola, Kotiranta 671002 329327 670720 29319 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 16766:1-2; KM Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
33194:1
Kaivola, Kärri 670999 329383 670718 29375 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16768:1-4; KM 16897; Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
KM 33192:1
Kaivola, Pappila 670945 329348 670663 29339 Stray find Iron Age KM 14792:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaivola, Passi Stray find Stone Age KM 2025:2
Kaivola, Passi Stray find Stone Age KM 6589:2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaivola, Uotila 671079 329365 670798 29356 Stray find Iron Age KM 15229 Salmo 1961; Huurre 1965;
Pukkila 2002
Kaivola, Yli-Kauko 670974 329297 670693 29289 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 16764:1-2; KM Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
16765:1-3; KM 33191:1
Kajala Stray find Iron Age KM 3684:44 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kajala, Latopuosta 670672 329558 670390 29549 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16774:1-4; KM 16775; Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
KM 16776; Perttelin
museo 744,745
Kajala, Latopuosta 670661 329545 670379 29537 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo 743 Huurre 1965
Kajala, Toivola 670624 329525 670343 29516 Stray find Stone Age KM 16785 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaukola, Jokela 671139 329152 670857 29144 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 16745 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaukola, Kankare 671386 329159 671104 29150 Settlement site Early Metal Period LNE/EBA, KM 16763:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002 Meinander 1969: 44; Hir-
PRIA viluoto 1991: 68, 205
Kaukola, Korpela 671181 329229 670899 29221 Stray find Stone Age MES KM 13659 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaukola, Kurajoen ranta 671056 329276 670775 29267 Stray find Stone Age KM 6578:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Kaukola, Lononmäki 671359 329159 671077 29151 Cairn? Undated Pukkila 2002
Nokka-Hiisi, Koskela Stray find Undated KM 16898 Pukkila 2002
Patala Stray find Historical Period KM 3684:52 Pukkila 2002
Patala, Keskitalo 670925 329954 670644 29945 Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 16677 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Perttelin kirkko Stray find Historical Period KM 4593:12-13
Pitkäkoski, Heinola 671314 330075 671033 30066 Stray find Stone Age MES Perttelin museo 1543 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Pitkäkoski, Heinola 671314 330075 671033 30066 Stray find Undated Perttelin museo 1544 Pukkila 2002

533
 Pitkäkoski, Rintala Stray find Stone Age KM 9165 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002

534
Pöytiö, Hiironpelto 670533 329719 670252 29710 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16782:1-3 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Pöytiö, Järvelä 670354 330014 670072 30005 Stray find Stone Age KM 10181:1 Pukkila 2002
Pöytiö, Linnamäki 670372 329834 670090 29825 Hillfort Iron Age? Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Pöytiö, Mertasaari 670358 330274 670077 30265 Stray find Stone Age KM 8893:7-9 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Pöytiö, Pöytäluhta 670447 329719 670166 29710 Stray find Iron Age Perttelin museo Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Pöytiö, Räimä Stray find Stone Age KM 3829:3 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Pöytiö, Räimä 670452 329701 670171 29692 Stray find Undated Perttelin museo Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Pöytiö, Räimänummi 670280 330025 669999 30016 Undefined pit site Undated Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Harjula 670595 329872 670313 29863 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 13314; KM 16678:1-5 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Kalliola 670494 329877 670213 29868 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 5987; KM 16781:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Kuusiranta 670591 329692 670309 29683 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16779:1-2; KM 33189:1-3 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Lehtimäki Stray find Stone Age KM 4219:6-7 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Lempo 670618 329787 670337 29778 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Luhta 670659 329824 670377 29815 Stray find Stone Age Perttelin museo Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Niku 670595 329816 670314 29807 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16780:1-2 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Ojanperä E 670635 329687 670353 29679 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16778:1-7; Perttelin Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
museo
Romsila, Ojanperä W 670645 329656 670364 29647 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16777:1-4; Perttelin Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
museo
Romsila, Ruti Stray find Stone Age KM 6589:1 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Seppälä Stray find Stone Age KM 4199:1 Pukkila 2002
Romsila, Töyrylä Stray find? Stone Age Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Särksen torppa Stray find Historical Period KM 3684:51 Pukkila 2002
Tattula, Halla 671215 329521 670934 29513 Undefined pit site Undated Huurre 1965
Tattula, Halla 671215 329521 670934 29513 Settlement site Stone Age KM 16787:1-6 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Tattula, Kankareenpelto 671181 329543 670900 29534 Inscription Post-Medieval Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Tattula, Kartanonpelto 671087 329436 670805 29427 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 6578:4; KM 33195:1-8 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Tattula, Kurajoki Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:15 Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Tattula, Ojala 671199 329531 670917 29522 Stray find Stone Age MES KM 24798 Pukkila 2002
Tattula, Ylöjoen pelto 671058 329452 670777 29444 Cemetery Iron Age KM 5857:1-2; KM Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
16679:1-7; KM 17858:1-2
Vähä-Hiisi, Rinne 671520 329785 671238 29776 Undefined pit site Undated Huurre 1965; Pukkila 2002
Valkjärvi, Peltola 669938 330089 669656 30080 Stray find Stone Age KM 17440 Pukkila 2002
Vihmalo, Haavikeoja Undefined Undated Halikon kotis.museo 167
Vihmalo, Haavikeoja 671131 329552 670849 29543 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 2025:11-14; KM Appelgren-Kivalo 1909; Huurre
5361:3 1965; Pukkila 2002
 Piikkiö
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Stone Age Hämeen museo 945:5-7
Stray find Stone Age KM 30318
Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 32:1
Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 119
Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 120
Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TMM 121 Luoto 1989: 26
Stray find Stone Age TMM 124
Stray find Stone Age TMM 133
Stray find Stone Age TMM 134
Stray find Stone Age TMM 150
Stray find Undated TMM 166
Stray find Undated TMM 16613:2
Stray find Stone Age TMM 56
Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 7
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 90
Stray find Stone Age TMM 96
Aro, Alitalo 671112 325709 670830 25702 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Aro, Alitalo 671114 325706 670832 25699 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Aro, Alitalo 671106 325710 670824 25703 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954;
Brusila 1995
Aro, Kesäkallio 671119 325768 670837 25761 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Aro, Ylitalo 671130 325738 670848 25731 Undefined Undated Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Aro, Ylitalo A 671150 325746 670868 25739 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aro, Ylitalo B 671149 325746 670867 25739 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aro, Ylitalo C 671152 325745 670871 25737 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aro, Ylitalo D 671155 325751 670873 25743 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aro, Ylitalo E 671143 325744 670862 25737 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Aro, Ylitalo F 671143 325745 670861 25738 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Bussila Stray find Stone Age KM 5573:5-13 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Knaapinen 1935: 12
Brusila 1995

535
 Bussila, 1 ** 671265 325483 670984 25476 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 24132:1-10 Asplund 1988; Poutiainen 1988; Asplund 1988

536
Brusila 1995
Bussila, 1 671270 325478 670988 25471 Settlement site? Iron Age TYA 259:1-3; TYA 391:1-2 Asplund & Luoto 1984; Asplund Asplund 1988
1988; Brusila 1995
Bussila, 2 ** 671229 325437 670948 25430 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 24131:1-13 Asplund 1988; Poutiainen 1988; Asplund 1988
Brusila 1995
Bussila, 3 * 671225 325474 670943 25467 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 24133:1-4 Poutiainen 1988; Brusila 1995 Asplund 1988
Bussila, Hepojoenranta 671282 325517 671000 25510 Settlement site? Iron Age? KM 29087:1-5; TYA 414:3-4 Asplund & Luoto 1984; Asp­lund
1988; Brusila 1995
Bussila, Rydingin torppa Stray find Stone Age Hämeen museo 396:1-5 Knaapinen 1935
Bussila, Skänkilä 671235 325444 670953 25437 Settlement site? Iron Age and/or KM 24130:1-13; TYA 414:1-2 Asplund & Luoto 1984; Asp­lund Asplund 1988
Medieval 1988; Poutiainen 1988; Brusila 1995
Bussila, Vuortenpää 671237 325549 670956 25542 Settlement site Stone Age KM 29088:1-7 Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Asunto 670994 325298 670713 25291 Cemetery? Iron Age TYA 229:1-126 Asplund & Luoto 1983; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Kärmä 1 670998 325239 670716 25232 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Kärmä 2 671002 325242 670720 25235 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Mattilanmaa * 670997 325278 670716 25271 Settlement site Iron Age CP KM 30442:1; TYA 229:16-111 Asplund & Luoto 1983; Asplund & Luoto 1989: 43
Luoto 1983; Brusila 1995; Asplund 1996
Hadvala, Mattilanmaa a 671002 325275 670721 25268 Stray find Iron Age KM 29409:1-3 Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Moskala 671053 325191 670771 25185 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Myrskylinna 670958 325208 670676 25201 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, CP KM 15692:1-2; KM Hirviluoto 1963; Hirviluoto 1964; Luoto 1989: 39-41
16168:1-14; KM 16234:1-9; Tamminen 1965; Lehtosalo 1968;
KM 17308:25-45; KM Lehtosalo-Hilander 1969; Vikkula
17794:1-25; KM 19001:1-62 1981; Vikkula 1982; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Myrskylinna 670958 325208 670676 25201 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 17308:1-24 Lehtosalo 1968; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Navirenrinne Stray find? Iron Age Ikäheimo 1982: 22
Hadvala, Rekola 1 670992 325259 670710 25252 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Rekola 2 670993 325263 670711 25256 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Rekolanmäki 670991 325264 670709 25257 Cemetery Iron Age KM 29092:1-43; TYA 229:1-126 Asplund & Luoto 1983; Brusila 1995
Hadvala, Ylhäisi 671004 325211 670722 25204 Stray find Iron Age VA TMM 14662:1-32 Salmo 1953; Brusila 1995 Luoto 1989: 41-42
Harvaluoto Stray find? Undated Brusila 1995
Harvaluoto, Alastalo ** 670456 325257 670175 25250 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TMM 14847
Hepojoki Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 3696:1 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954;
Brusila 1995
Hepo-oja Stray find Stone Age KM 22804
Hulkis-Tuorla, Tuorla A 670894 324916 670613 24909 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Viitaharju 1984; Brusila 1995
Hulkis-Tuorla, Tuorla B 670897 324921 670615 24914 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Viitaharju 1984; Brusila 1995
Huttala Stray find? Undated Åbo katedralskola Koskimies & Haapanen 1954;
Brusila 1995
 Huttala Stray find? Undated Turun suomalainen klas-
sillinen lyseo
Huttala, Huttalanmäki 671024 325428 670742 25421 Settlement site Iron Age PRIA, TYA 225:1-5; TYA 253:1- Asplund & Luoto 1983; Asplund & Luoto 1989: 44-52
CP 150; TYA 283:1-86 Luoto 1985; Liippo 1985; Asplund
& Luoto 1985; Brusila 1995
Huttala, Huttalanmäki 671025 325430 670744 25423 Cemetery Iron Age CP TYA 334:1-291; TYA Asplund & Luoto 1985; Brusila Luoto 1989: 48-51
388:1-219 1995
Huttala, Kiettiönhaanvuori 671029 325666 670747 25659 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Huttala, Pohtionvuori 671011 325587 670730 25580 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Huttala, Tammisillanoja 671019 325475 670738 25468 Settlement site? Iron Age Luoto 1989: 45, 52
Ikkerlä, Pussilan linnavuori 671441 325507 671159 25500 Hillfort? Undated Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Luoto 1989: 54
Brusila 1995
Ikkerlä, Ristivuori 671570 325438 671288 25431 Undefined Undated Brusila 1995
Iso-Hepojoki, Pötrönen Stray find? Stone Age Pötrösen kokoelma
Joensuu, Kipervuori 670731 325355 670450 25348 Undefined Undated Koskimies & Haapanen 1954
Joensuu, Kylänpään palsta 670930 325346 670648 25339 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 4249:1; KM 4567:18; Rinne 1905; Kivikoski 1937; Brusila Luoto 1989: 53
KM 10731:1-2; TMM 7430:1 1995
Joensuu, Vihersalo Stray find Stone Age KM 14444 Brusila 1995
Kalainen, Etelävuori 671111 325671 670829 25663 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kalainen, Ylhäinen 671099 325652 670818 25645 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Kalaisi, Liuskala 671228 325693 670946 25686 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA TMM 14564 Brusila 1995
Katari 670956 325597 670674 25590 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Katari, Huttalan linnavuoren- 670944 325539 670663 25532 Settlement site Iron Age KM 29085:1-8 Brusila 1995
rinne
Katari, Huttalan linnavuori 670959 325524 670677 25517 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Katari, Huttalan linnavuori 670961 325523 670679 25516 Hillfort Iron Age PRIA, TYA 226:1-20 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Luoto 1989: 54-55
CP Hirviluoto 1963; Asplund & Luoto
1983; Brusila 1995
Kierlä, Nummi 671370 325289 671089 25282 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze TMM 6088; TMM 6089; Brusila 1995 Luoto 1989: 29
Age TMM 6090
Kipervuori 670742 325335 670461 25328 Inscription Post-Medieval Brusila 1995
Kirkonkylä, Honkasalon Stray find? Stone Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Knaapinen 1935: 20
huvila Brusila 1995
Kirkonkylä, Kellotapulinmäki 671012 325344 670731 25337 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Koroinen, Metsärinne 671095 325269 670813 25262 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 29089:1-3 Brusila 1995
Koski 671004 325141 670723 25134 Settlement site Iron Age KM 27983:1-45; KM Sartes 1993; Brusila 1995
28056:1-55

537
 Koski, Koskenhaka 671012 325110 670730 25103 Cemetery Iron Age ERA, KM 10547:1; KM 10605:1- Kivikoski 1937; Kivikoski 1939; Salo 1968; Luoto 1989:

538
LRA 162; KM 10843:1-5,9- Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; 31-35
11,13,18,30-35 Brusila 1995
Koski, Koskenhaka 671010 325108 670729 25101 Cemetery Iron Age MER KM 10843:6-8,12,14-17,19- Kivikoski 1939; Koskimies & Luoto 1989: 35-36.
24,26-29 Haapanen 1954; Brusila 1995
Koski, Koskenhaka 671011 325114 670729 25107 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 27057:28-54 Tiitinen 1992; Brusila 1995
Koski, Koskenhaka Stray find Iron Age KM 30205
Koski, Mäntysalo 671092 325013 670811 25006 Stray find? Stone Age Brusila 1995
Koski, Ristkankare 671022 325136 670740 25129 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 10547:2; KM 10844:1-2; Kivikoski 1937; Brusila 1995 Luoto 1989: 36-37
KM 29084:1-6
Kuoppajärvi 670793 325648 670511 25641 Pollen sample site Salonen et al. 1981
Makarla Stray find Stone Age KM 25420
Makarla, Alaskartano Stray find? Stone Age BAT Brusila 1995 Knaapinen 1935
Makarla, Alaskartano Stray find Stone Age KM 5102:1-2 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tallgren 1931: 173; Luoto
Brusila 1995 1989: 22
Makarla, Ojalan hiekkakuop- Stray find Stone Age KM 13570 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954;
pa Brusila 1995
Makarla, Pyökäri Cemetery? Iron Age MER KM 12153 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Luoto 1989: 53
Brusila 1995
Makarla, Vuortenpää 671228 325547 670947 25540 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 254:1-3 Asplund & Luoto 1984; Brusila 1995 Luoto 1989: 16-17
Moisio Cup-marked stone? Undated
Moisio 670944 325608 670662 25601 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age PRIA TYA 228:1-2 Hirviluoto 1963; Asplund & Luoto Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
1983; Brusila 1995
Moisio, Alistalo 670948 325635 670666 25628 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron Age LBA, KM 29086:1-5; TYA 255:1, TYA Asplund & Luoto 1984; Asplund
PRIA 369:1-3, TYA 392:1-13, TYA 1987; Asplund & Luoto 1988;
444, TYA 513:1; TYA 644:1-37 Brusila 1995; Saarinen 1999
Moisio, Heernummenkallio 670949 325640 670667 25633 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995
Moisio, Kaatopaikan kallio 670952 325617 670670 25610 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Asplund & Luoto 1984; Brusila 1995 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Moisio, Kalmukankare 670892 325437 670610 25430 Cemetery Iron Age CP KM 4189:2; KM 13572; KM Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Salo Luoto 1989: 53-54
19684:1-2; TYA 85:1-30 1975; Salo 1975; Asplund & Luoto
1983; Brusila 1995
Nunna, Viljamaa Stray find Stone Age KM 14790 Brusila 1995
Pappila Stray find Iron Age? TMM 8102 Luoto 1989: 43-44
Pappila, Aaltonen ** 671043 325327 670761 25320 Stray find Iron Age TMM 15818:1-3 Brusila 1995 Luoto 1989: 43-44
Pukkila Settlement site? Stone Age KM 25998
Raadelma Stray find? Stone Age? Viitaharju 1984; Brusila 1995
Raadelma 670902 325033 670620 25026 Cairn? Iron Age? Viitaharju 1984; Brusila 1995
Raadelma Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 8920
 Raadelma, Kranaatin torppa Stray find Stone and/or Bronze LNE/ KM 4258:1 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954;
Age EBA Viitaharju 1984; Brusila 1995
Raadelma, Raadelman 670922 325004 670641 24997 Stray find Iron Age? KM 11390 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Luoto 1989: 31
kartano ** Brusila 1995
Raadelma, Rojolanmäen 670906 325047 670625 25041 Settlement site Historical Period Brusila 1995
rinne
Raadelma, Rojolanmäki Stray find? Undated Viitaharju 1984; Brusila 1995
Raadelma, Rojolanmäki 670914 325043 670632 25036 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995
Reunavuori Stray find Stone Age Perniön museo 3086 Brusila 1995
Runa Undefined Undated TMM 6131:1
Runko, Koskenhaka * 671003 325110 670721 25103 Settlement site? Iron Age PRIA KM 27057:1-27 Tiitinen 1992; Brusila 1995
Runko, Lindroosin palsta Stray find Iron Age MIG KM 10604 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954 Luoto 1989: 37
Runko, Onnela 671000 325089 670718 25082 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954;
Brusila 1995
Runko, Onnela 671000 325088 670718 25081 Cairn? Iron Age? Koskimies & Haapanen 1954
Runko, Sipiranta 670986 325160 670704 25153 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Runko, Tiitusmäki 670985 325176 670703 25169 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, KM 10603:1-7; KM Kivikoski 1941; Koskimies & Luoto 1989: 37-39
MIG, VA 11285:1-152 Haapanen 1954; Brusila 1995
Salvela, Kiettiö 670995 325668 670713 25661 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995
Salvela, Korvenmäki ** 670993 325437 670711 25430 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 13234 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Luoto 1989: 53
Brusila 1995
Suopohja, Keskikankare Stray find Iron Age VA KM 13571 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Luoto 1989: 31
Brusila 1995
Suurhepojoki, Hakalan pelto Stray find? Iron Age? Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Knaapinen 1935
Brusila 1995
Suurhepojoki, Lausmäki 671572 325622 671290 25615 Settlement site Stone Age CC, BAT KM 29091:1-3; TYA 256:7- Asplund & Luoto 1984; Asplund Luoto 1989: 16-18
12; TYA 333:1-23,25-26,28; 1987; Brusila 1995
TYA 370:1-4
Suurhepojoki, Lausmäki 671572 325622 671290 25615 Cemetery Stone Age BAT TYA 256:1-6; TYA Asplund & Luoto 1984; Brusila Luoto 1989: 19-21
333:24,27,29 1995
Suurhepojoki, Palomäki 671561 325688 671279 25681 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 29090:1-5 Brusila 1995
Suurhepojoki, Ylikylä Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 13569 Koskimies & Haapanen 1954;
Brusila 1995
Tammisilta, Kerätie 5 671090 325786 670809 25779 Stray find? Stone Age? Asplund 1991
Teppala, Korsuvuori 671137 325158 670856 25151 Undefined pit Undated Brusila 1995
site
Teppala, Lehmusto 671037 325163 670755 25156 Settlement site? Iron Age? KM 29083:1-7 Brusila 1995
Teppala, Teppalanmäki 671048 325169 670766 25162 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Teppala, Yli-Teppala Stray find Iron Age MER KM 10580:1-2 Brusila 1995 Luoto 1989: 39

539
 Varesvuori 671078 325118 670796 25111 Settlement site Historical Period Brusila 1995

540
Viuhkala, Jääranta Stray find? Iron Age TMM 14275
Viukkala Stray find Iron Age VA KM 12258 Luoto 1989: 54
Viukkala, Järvenmäki 670787 325624 670506 25617 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Brusila 1995
Viukkala, Kylänpää 670847 325456 670565 25449 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Brusila 1994; Brusila 1995
Viukkala, Leskelä ja Kurkola 670877 325489 670595 25481 Cemetery? Iron Age TYA 230:1-25 Asplund & Luoto 1983; Brusila 1995 Luoto 1989: 54
Viukkala, Perosmäki Stray find? Iron Age? Koskimies & Haapanen 1954; Knaapinen 1935
Brusila 1995
Vähä-Hepojoki, Pyökäri Stray find Stone Age TMM 16284:1
Vähä-Hepojoki, Toikka Stray find Undated TMM 16284:2
 Salo
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Stone Age Hämeen museo /
Lindellin kokoelma 97
Stray find Stone Age KM 11178:3
Stray find Stone Age KM 27150
Stray find Stone Age KM 2794:43 Hirviluoto 1991: 207
Stray find Stone Age KM 2912:135-136 Hirviluoto 1991: 208
Stray find Stone Age KM 30
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:29
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:31
Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:5
Stray find Stone Age KM 4593:2-6 Tallgren 1906
Stray find Stone Age KM 4730
Stray find Stone Age KM 5267:1-2
Stray find Stone Age KM 5512:1
Stray find? Stone Age KM 5512:2-10
Stray find? Undated KM 5531:10
Stray find? Stone Age KM 5531:1-9
Stray find? Historical Period KM 6014
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 674
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 785
Stray find Medieval KM 8205:2 Taavitsainen 1989
Stray find Stone Age KM 8864:4
Stray find Stone Age Salon keskuskansakoulun
kokoelma
Stray find Iron Age VA TMM 14105:1
Stray find Stone Age TMM 180
Stray find Stone Age TMM 181
Stray find Stone Age TMM 182
Stray find Stone Age TMM 183
Stray find Stone Age TMM 187
Stray find Stone Age TMM 188 Hirviluoto 1991: 209
Stray find Stone Age TMM 189
Stray find Stone Age TMM 190

541
 Stray find Stone Age TMM 191

542
Stray find Stone Age TMM 192
Stray find Stone Age? TMM 193
Stray find? Iron Age? TMM 6300
Stray find? Stone Age TMM 6301
Stray find? Stone Age TMM 6845
Alhaisi, Kirjolanmäki 670186 328610 669904 28602 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32850:1-4 Raike 2001
Alhaisi, Leikkipuisto 670196 328657 669915 28648 Cup-marked stone Iron Age Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
Anjala Stray find Undated KM 29157
Anjala, Karvasenmaa Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:7
Breidilä, Friisinkruunu 669982 328265 669701 28257 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 2005
Fulkkila Stray find Bronze Age LNE/ KM 2058:2 Hirviluoto 1991: 67
EBA
Fulkkila, Tampaltanmäki 669978 328426 669697 28418 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Asplund 1998; Hirviluoto 1991: 60-63;
Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Haitio 670829 329024 670548 29016 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32838:1-5 Raike 2001
Hakastaro 669594 328375 669313 28367 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Hakastaro Settlement site? Stone Age? Raike 2001
Hakastaro, Hakastaron 670122 328727 669840 28719 Undefined pit Undated Raike 2001 Appelgren 1891: 67-71, 223
linnamäki site
Hakastaro, Hakastaron 670122 328727 669840 28719 Hillfort Medieval or Post- KM 2435:14-16 Raike 2001 Appelgren 1891: 67-71, 223;
linnamäki Medieval Hirviluoto 1991: 183-185
Hakastaro, Hossama Stray find? Stone and/or Bronze Age
Hakastaro, Hossamaa Stray find Undated KM 8579:2
Hakastaro, Hossanmaa Stray find Stone Age KM 23525
Hakastaro, Kankare Stray find Stone Age KM 4593:10
Hakastaro, Kavilannummi 669561 328384 669280 28376 Undefined Undated Hirviluoto 1991: 222
Hakastaro, Pelimäki 669560 328390 669279 28382 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 2005
Hakastaro, Ryssänrinnanmäki ** 670109 328713 669827 28704 Settlement site Historical Period KM 2912:206-217 Appelgren 1898 Hirviluoto 1991
Haukkala, Jaakko Stray find Stone Age KM 8808
Haukkala, Pälkkö Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:8
Helisnummi Stray find Stone Age KM 17008
Helisnummi Stray find Stone Age KM 6750:1
Hämmäinen 1 670229 328882 669948 28873 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32849:1-6 Raike 2001
Hämmäinen 2 670220 328878 669939 28870 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 32848:1-2 Raike 2001
Hämmäinen, Aromäki 670086 329034 669805 29026 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991; Tuovinen &
Vuorinen 1992
 Hämmäinen, Haukkamäki 670178 328943 669897 28935 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991; Tuovinen &
Vuorinen 1992
Hämmäinen, Hevoshaka 670227 328867 669945 28859 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 32847:1-2 Raike 2001
Hämmäinen, Marjanen Stray find Iron Age VA TMM 13038:1
Hämmäinen, Metsäniitty Stray find Stone Age TMM 13025:1
Hämmäinen, Puustellin lohko 670213 328899 669932 28890 Cup-marked stone Iron Age Raike 2001
Isokylä 670599 328792 670317 28784 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Isokylä 670597 328814 670315 28806 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Isokylä 670610 328816 670328 28807 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Isokylä Stray find Stone Age Halikon kotis.museo 303
Isokylä Stray find? Multi-Period KM 17009
Isokylä Stray find Iron Age KM 24489
Isokylä Stray find Undated KM 26578
Isokylä Stray find Stone Age TMM 12955:1
Isokylä Stray find Stone Age TMM 13008:1
Isokylä, Alho 670501 328700 670220 28691 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 10505:1-2; KM Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
10514:3-6,8-9 Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Aro 670676 328826 670395 28817 Stray find Iron Age MER KM 3316:11 Appelgren 1896; Appelgren 1896 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Aro 670677 328818 670395 28809 Stray find Iron Age? KM 3316:12 Appelgren 1896; Appelgren 1896 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Emäkirkko Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 10338:13
Isokylä, Hämeenojan puisto Settlement site? Iron Age KM 24892; KM 26103
Isokylä, Isomäen luoteisrinne 670580 328745 670298 28737 Settlement site Early Metal Period PRIA, KM 18808 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986:
ERA, 24; Uino 1986: 133; Hirviluoto
LRA 1991: 205
Isokylä, Isomäki 670677 328800 670396 28791 Cairn Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Isotupa 670502 328706 670221 28697 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 10328; KM 10577:1-12 Kivikoski 1937; Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 17-
18; Hirviluoto 1991: 210
Isokylä, Katajamäen palsta * 670546 328741 670265 28732 Settlement site Stone Age CC KM 7095:62-63; KM 8232:8- Europaeus 1917; Europaeus 1923; Uino 1986: 70-83; Hirviluoto
10; KM 20251:307,354,488; Carpelan & Uino 1978 1991
KM 20558:1-2; KM
20561:1436
Isokylä, Katajamäki 670541 328740 670259 28732 Settlement site? Early Metal Period Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Katajamäki 670541 328743 670260 28735 Cairn Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986

543
 Isokylä, Katajamäki 670541 328740 670259 28732 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, KM 6459:1-78; KM 6479; Europaeus 1914; Europaeus 1914; Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;

544
MIG KM 6668:1-24; KM Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 33-
6788:1-8 37; Hirviluoto 1991: 213
Isokylä, Ketohaan alue * 670546 328747 670265 28738 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron KM 20252:4-34; KM Carpelan & Uino 1978; Carpelan Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Age 20562:1-481; KM 20838:1- et al. 1980 Uino 1986; Hirviluoto 1991
312,359-621
Isokylä, Ketohaka 670547 328755 670265 28747 Cairn? Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Ketohaka 670544 328747 670262 28739 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 20838:313-358 Carpelan et al. 1980 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 37-38
Isokylä, Ketohaka 670548 328747 670266 28738 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze LBA KM 6914 Hackman 1916 Hackman 1917b: 59-61; Fig.
Age 14:2; Schauman-Lönnqvist et al
1986; Uino 1986: 125, 129, Fig.
5:5; Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
39-42; Hirviluoto 1991: 100, 215
Isokylä, Ketohaka (1) 670554 328745 670272 28736 Cemetery Iron Age MIG, KM 5614:1-6; KM 6125:12- Tallgren 1912; Hackman 1914 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
MER 30; KM 6658:130-177
Isokylä, Ketohaka (10) 670542 328747 670260 28739 Cairn Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Ketohaka (11) 670556 328749 670275 28741 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 21170:819-887 Carpelan et al. 1981 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
50-51; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Ketohaka (12) 670544 328747 670262 28739 Cairn? Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
37-38; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Ketohaka (2) 670553 328745 670271 28737 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 6658:18-129; KM Hackman 1914 Formisto 1984: 43-45; Schau-
6914:100-101 man-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Ketohaka (3) 670552 328745 670271 28736 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, KM 6669:1-7 Europaeus 1914 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
MIG Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
42-43; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Ketohaka (4) 670551 328744 670270 28735 Cairn? Iron Age? KM 5614:7-8 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 42
Isokylä, Ketohaka (5) 670551 328745 670269 28737 Cairn? Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 42
Isokylä, Ketohaka (6) 670548 328747 670266 28738 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, KM 6914:4-99,102-103 Hackman 1915 Hackman 1917: 59-61; Schau-
VA man-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 39-
42; Hirviluoto 1991: 100, 215
Isokylä, Ketohaka (7) 670547 328748 670265 28740 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 9391:1-21 Kivikoski 1931 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 38-
39; Hirviluoto 1991: 102, 216
Isokylä, Ketohaka (8) 670545 328748 670264 28740 Cairn? Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 38
 Isokylä, Ketohaka (9) 670544 328750 670263 28742 Cairn? Iron Age KM 16135:1-2 Hirviluoto 1963 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 38
Isokylä, Ketohaka 1 * 670548 328742 670266 28733 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron LBA, KM 7095:64-66; KM 7300:5- Europaeus 1917; Carpelan & Uino 1986; Schauman-Lönn­qvist
Age PRIA 6; KM 20251:1-306,308- Uino 1978 et al 1986; Hirviluoto 1991
353,355-487,489-709; KM
20561:1-1435,1437-1674
Isokylä, Ketohaka 2 * 670557 328748 670276 28740 Pollen sample site Tolonen 1985
Isokylä, Ketohaka 2 * 670557 328748 670276 28740 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron LBA, KM 20252:1-3; KM Carpelan et al. 1978; Carpelan et Uino 1986; Schauman-Lönn­qvist
Age PRIA 20838:622-1166; KM al. 1980; Carpelan et al. 1981 et al 1986; Hirviluoto 1991
21170:1-818,888-899
Isokylä, Ketohaka N 670570 328743 670288 28735 Cairn Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Ketohaka N 670570 328744 670289 28736 Cairn Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Ketohaka N 670571 328744 670289 28735 Cairn Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Ketohaka N 670573 328743 670292 28734 Cairn Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Ketohaka NE 670566 328758 670285 28750 Cairn Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 54
Isokylä, Ketohaka NE 670565 328758 670284 28750 Cairn LRA KM 2434:1-16 Raike 2001 Hackman 1905; Schauman-Lönn­
qvist et al 1986; Schauman-Lönn­
qvist 1989: 52-54; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Ketohaka S Settlement site? Iron Age KM 24893
Isokylä, Ketola 670537 328733 670256 28725 Cairn Iron Age? Leppäaho 1950 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 31-32
Isokylä, Ketola 670540 328739 670259 28730 Cemetery? Iron Age MER KM 7300:7 Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 32-33
Isokylä, Ketomäki 670569 328803 670287 28794 Cairn? Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 57
Isokylä, Ketomäki 670569 328799 670288 28790 Cairn Iron Age? Hirviluoto 1962; Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 57
Isokylä, Ketomäki 670571 328794 670289 28786 Cairn? Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 58
Isokylä, Ketomäki 670573 328793 670292 28785 Cairn Iron Age? Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 58
Isokylä, Ketomäki 670565 328792 670284 28784 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 5580:120; KM 7095:1- Hackman 1916; Raike 2001 Hackman 1917; Schauman-Lönn­
9,11-49 qvist et al 1986; Schauman-Lönn­
qvist 1989: 54-57; Hirviluoto
1991: 113-114, 216-217
Isokylä, Ketomäki 670565 328796 670284 28787 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 6464 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 57;
Hirviluoto 1991

545
 Isokylä, Ketomäki 670565 328792 670284 28784 Settlement site Bronze and/or Iron LBA, KM 7095:10 Hackman 1916 Hackman 1917b: Fig. 14:1; Meinan­

546
Age PRIA der 1969: 45; Schauman-Lönnqvist
et al 1986; Schauman-Lönnqvist
1989: 54-57; Hirviluoto 1991: 113-
114, 216-217
Isokylä, Klaavu 670638 328820 670357 28812 Stray find Stone Age KM 20234
Isokylä, Klaavu Stray find Stone Age KM 20328
Isokylä, Klaavu 670620 328825 670339 28817 Stray find Iron Age KM 25384:1-3 Poutiainen 1989
Isokylä, Klaavu 670628 328828 670347 28819 Settlement site? Early Metal Period PRIA KM 25384:1-3; KM 32844 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 76, 205
Isokylä, Klaavu Stray find Stone Age KM 6824:1-2
Isokylä, Koivumäki 670590 328816 670308 28807 Cemetery Iron Age MIG, KM 5580:1-119; KM Hackman 1910; Hackman 1914; Hackman 1914; Schauman-
MER 6658:1-17 Katiskoski 1983; Raike 2001 Lönnqvist et al 1986; Schau-
man-Lönnqvist 1989: 58-63;
Hirviluoto 1991: 114, 217
Isokylä, Kupila Stray find Undated KM 21189
Isokylä, Kupila ** 670657 328883 670375 28875 Settlement site Iron Age KM 25385:1-6 Poutiainen 1989 Hirviluoto 1991: 175
Isokylä, Kupila Stray find Stone Age KM 29760
Isokylä, Kupila 670653 328855 670371 28846 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 3316:1-10 Appelgren 1896; Appelgren 1896; Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
67-69; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Kupila 670689 328848 670408 28840 Stray find Iron Age VA TMM 14762 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 70;
Hirviluoto 1991: 167-170, 221
Isokylä, Kupilan pelto ** 670636 328877 670355 28869 Stray find Historical Period? KM 32845:1,3 Raike 2001
Isokylä, Kupilan pelto ** 670636 328877 670355 28869 Stray find Iron Age? KM 32845:2 Raike 2001
Isokylä, Matamäki 670655 328861 670373 28853 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 3187:47-50; KM Appelgren 1896; Appelgren 1896; Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
3316:16 Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 66-
67; Hirviluoto 1991: 218
Isokylä, Palomäki 670591 328815 670309 28807 Cairn Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 63
Isokylä, Palomäki 670596 328823 670314 28814 Cairn? Iron Age? Hirviluoto 1962 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 63
Isokylä, Palomäki 1 670613 328817 670331 28809 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Age Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 66
Isokylä, Palomäki 2 670596 328816 670315 28807 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Age Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 63
Isokylä, Palomäki 2 670597 328813 670315 28805 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Age Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 63
Isokylä, Palomäki 2 670600 328821 670319 28813 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 4395:1-12; KM Rinne 1905; Raike 2001 Rinne 1906; Schauman-Lönn­
4567:2-14 qvist et al 1986; Schauman-Lönn­
qvist 1989: 64-65; Hirviluoto
1991: 114-115, 217-218
 Isokylä, Palomäki 2 670600 328821 670319 28813 Stray find Bronze Age LNE/ KM 4567:1 Rinne 1905; Raike 2001 Rinne 1906; Hirviluoto 1972: 64;
EBA Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
64-65; Hirviluoto 1991: 114-115,
217-218
Isokylä, Paltta 670568 328774 670287 28765 Cairn Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 54
Isokylä, Paltta 670575 328774 670294 28766 Cairn Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 54
Isokylä, Paltta 670577 328777 670296 28769 Cairn Iron Age? Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 54
Isokylä, Peltola Undefined pit Undated Leppäaho 1953
site
Isokylä, Rintala 670574 328819 670293 28811 Stray find? Undated KM 20440
Isokylä, Ruoksmäki 670709 328889 670428 28881 Stray find Iron Age CP KM 23250 Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Ruoksmäki ** 670709 328889 670428 28881 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 25915 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Ruoksmäki 670708 328895 670427 28887 Cemetery Iron Age KM 32843:1-4 Raike 2001
Isokylä, Santamäensuo 670927 328794 670645 28786 Pollen sample site Tolonen 1985b
Isokylä, Santamäki 670931 328777 670649 28769 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 12861 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 72;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Tienhaara 670463 328724 670182 28716 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 9898 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 14;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Tyynelänkatu Stray find Undated KM 20868 Hirviluoto 1991: 220
Isokylä, Töyrä 670536 328727 670254 28719 Cairn Iron Age? Leppäaho 1950 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 31;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Uskelan emäkirkko 670586 328908 670305 28899 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 4567:15; KM 6792:1-2 Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 66;
Hirviluoto 1991: 176-177
Isokylä, Valholanmäki 670498 328671 670217 28663 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 10514:1-2,7; KM Kivikoski 1937; Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
10578:1-11 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 16;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanumammantie Settlement site? Iron Age KM 26577
Isokylä, Vanumammantie 16 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 26104
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670515 328715 670233 28706 Settlement site? Early Metal Period PRIA Schauman-Lönnqvist 1987 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670515 328717 670234 28708 Settlement site? Early Metal Period Schauman-Lönnqvist 1987 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
23-24; Hirviluoto 1991

547
 Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670508 328718 670227 28709 Cairn? Iron Age MIG KM 10327:1-7 Kivikoski 1936 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;

548
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
19-20; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki Stray find Iron Age MIG KM 11178:4-9 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 31
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670521 328721 670239 28712 Cairn? Iron Age KM 18809
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki Settlement site? Iron Age KM 20081:1-101
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670536 328729 670255 28721 Stray find Stone Age KM 20123
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670512 328724 670231 28715 Cairn? Iron Age LRA, KM 20610:452 Linturi 1980 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
MIG Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
22-23; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670519 328717 670237 28709 Cairn Iron Age? KM 21201 Linturi 1982 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 26;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670517 328716 670236 28707 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 21201:45,78,79,104,109 Linturi 1982 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
25-26; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670515 328715 670233 28706 Cairn Iron Age MIG KM 21499:1-135,168 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1987; Raike Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 23;
Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670515 328717 670234 28708 Cairn Iron Age? KM 21499:136-165,169 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1987 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
23-24; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki Undefined Undated KM 21499:166-167,170 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1987
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670496 328714 670215 28706 Cairn? Iron Age KM 23249:1-99 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
18-19; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670522 328720 670241 28712 Cairn? Iron Age LRA KM 6125:1-11 Tallgren 1912 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
29-30; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670511 328717 670229 28709 Cairn Iron Age LRA KM 6914:1; KM 7095:50- Hackman 1916 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
57,59-61 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
20-22; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670510 328742 670228 28734 Settlement site? Early Metal Period KM 7095:58 Hackman 1916 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 20-22
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670521 328719 670240 28710 Cemetery Iron Age LRA, KM 7138:1-62; KM 21500 Tallgren 1916; Linturi 1983; Raike Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
MIG 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
26-29; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 670515 328716 670234 28708 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 9821:1-3; KM Kivikoski 1934; Pälsi 1934 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
9829:1-10 Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989:
24-25; Hirviluoto 1991
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 1 * 670508 328720 670226 28712 Settlement site Iron Age LRA, KM 20610:1-451,453-488; Linturi 1980; Linturi 1981 Uino 1986: 156-157; Schauman-
MIG, KM 20869:1-859 Lönnqvist et al 1986
MER
 Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 2 * 670549 328725 670268 28717 Settlement site Early Metal Period KM 18807:1-2; KM 20870:1- Linturi 1981 Uino 1986: 157; Schauman-
206; KM 21200:1-121 ­Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 3 * 672978 672978 Settlement site Early Metal Period KM 21201:1-330 Linturi 1982 Uino 1986: 158; Schauman-
­Lönnqvist et al 1986
Isokylä, Vanutehtaanmäki 4 * 670524 328719 670243 28710 Settlement site Iron Age KM 21500:1-466 Linturi 1983 Uino 1986: 158; Schauman-
­Lönnqvist et al 1986
Joensuu Stray find Iron Age VA KM 7019:1 Hirviluoto 1992: 145
Joensuu, Majala 670496 328435 670214 28427 Stray find Iron Age CP KM 2570:1-5 Hirviluoto 1991: 186-188;
Purhonen 1998: 59
Karjaskylä Stray find Stone Age KM 8789:2
Karjaskylä, Aarnionperän- 670120 328939 669839 28930 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
mäki Age
Karjaskylä, Aarnionsuo 670084 328891 669803 28883 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 19740:1-7 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
Karjaskylä, Eerikki 670239 328860 669958 28852 Cup-marked stone Iron Age Raike 2001
Karjaskylä, Eerikki 670239 328860 669958 28852 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32846:1-3 Raike 2001
Karjaskylä, Enolanmäki Stray find Undated KM 7297
Karjaskylä, Hopeakankare 670291 328856 670010 28848 Stray find Iron Age MIG KM 24490; Maija-Liisa Vikkula 1983 Hirviluoto 1991: 116-117, 219
Luojuksen kokoelma
Karjaskylä, Kurjenpahna Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 10376
Karjaskylä, Kurjenpahna Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 2436:10
Karjaskylä, Vähäsilta Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 12301:1
Karjaskylä, Vähäsilta Stray find Bronze and/or Iron KM 12301:2
Age
Kaukvuori, Pohkallio 669588 328602 669307 28594 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Age
Kaukvuori, Pohkallio 669594 328601 669313 28593 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Age
Kaukvuori, Reunala Stray find Stone Age KM 27204
Kaukvuori, Utiskanmäki 670014 328624 669733 28616 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Age
Kavila 669606 328461 669325 28452 Stray find Stone Age KM 21304
Kavila, Kavilannummi ** 669550 328399 669269 28391 Stray find Iron Age CP KM 9419 Hirviluoto 1991: 178-179, 220
Kriikki, Enolan mäki Stray find Iron Age Viinamäen museo 5
Krottila, Krottilan torppa Stray find Iron Age VA Viinamäen museo
Kupila, Ruoksmäki Stray find Iron Age KM 28759
Kärkis-Fulkila, Noppila Stray find Stone Age KM 16895
Kärkis-Fulkkila, Mäntymaa 669717 328824 669436 28816 Settlement site Stone Age KM 10598:5; KM 11291:1; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
KM 20047:1-6; KM
20683:1-3, KM 23299.1-5

549
 Kärkkä Stray find Stone Age KM 28206

550
Kärkkä, Kärkkään kellari 670175 328550 669894 28541 Stray find Iron Age KM 5422:1 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
Kärkkä, Noppa 669684 328843 669403 28834 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 17018:1-5 Hirviluoto 1991
Kärkkä, Tampaltanmäki 669978 328414 669697 28406 Cairn? Undated Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kärkkä, Viitamäki 670065 328406 669784 28398 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Age
Kärkkä, Viitamäki 670053 328422 669771 28414 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 64; Tuovinen &
Age Vuorinen 1992
Kärkkä, Viitamäki 670053 328416 669772 28408 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 64; Tuovinen &
Age Vuorinen 1992
Kärkkä, Viitamäki 670052 328417 669771 28409 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Asplund 1996
Age
Loppi Stray find Stone Age KM 2025:1
Loppi, Kynttelkoski 671386 329159 671104 29150 Undefined Undated
Meriniitynpuisto 670381 328518 670099 28510 Cemetery Iron Age LRA KM 30930; KM 32225:1- Raike 2001 Pesonen & Lahti 2005; Pesonen
201 2006
Moisio, Mahlakankare 670433 328889 670152 28880 Cemetery? Iron Age MIG KM 9247:1-2 Salmo 1930; Hirviluoto 1966; Hirviluoto 1991
Vikkula 1983; Raike 2001
Moisio, Mahlakankare Stray find Stone Age KM 9247:3
Mököinen, Ilola 670415 328892 670133 28884 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze KM 15896:1-5 Hirviluoto 1966; Vikkula 1983 Hirviluoto 1991
Age
Mököinen, Uusitalo Stray find? Undated KM 16129
Pahkavuori 670336 328786 670054 28778 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 10930:1-2 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 170-171
Pahkavuori, Marttila 670282 328817 670001 28808 Cup-marked stone Iron Age Raike 2001
Pahkavuori, Muurila Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 3684:13
Pajula, Pähkinärinne 670459 328497 670177 28489 Cairn? Iron Age KM 16859 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 219
Pajula, Pähkinärinne 22 Undefined Iron Age KM 26426
Pettilä Stray find Stone Age KM 10026
Pettinen, Katinkallio 670051 328891 669770 28882 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pukkila ** 669687 328839 669406 28831 Pollen sample site Tolonen 1983
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:30
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:32
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:34
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:36
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:37
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:38
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:39
Pukkila Stray find? Undated KM 3187:40
 Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 8315:2
Pukkila Stray find Undated KM 8760:3
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age KM 8797
Pukkila Stray find? Iron Age VA KM 8797:2 Hirviluoto 1991: 221
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 343
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 344
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 345
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 346
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 347
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 348
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 349
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age? Pukkilan museo 350
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 351
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 352
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 353
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 354
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 355
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 356
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 357
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 358
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age? Pukkilan museo 359
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 360
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 361
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 362
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 363
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age? Pukkilan museo 364
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age? Pukkilan museo 365
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age? Pukkilan museo 366
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age? Pukkilan museo 367
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age? Pukkilan museo 368
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age CC Pukkilan museo 369
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age CC Pukkilan museo 370
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age CC Pukkilan museo 371
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age CC Pukkilan museo 372
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age CC Pukkilan museo 373
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age CC Pukkilan museo 374

551
 Pukkila Stray find Stone Age CC Pukkilan museo 375

552
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 376
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 377
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age Pukkilan museo 378
Pukkila Stray find Undated Pukkilan museo 379
Pukkila Stray find Undated Pukkilan museo 381-383 Hirviluoto 1991: 209
Pukkila Stray find Stone Age TMM 16132:1-29
Pukkila, Alhonpelto 669703 328796 669422 28787 Settlement site Stone Age CC KM 10490:2-8; KM 10566:10- Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 201
28; KM 10625:3-6; KM
10723:12-18; KM 10796:1-6;
KM 10830:33-47; KM
10978:10-14; KM 11029:23-46;
KM 11177:1-6; KM 11189:11-
15; KM 11192:1-2; KM
11245:3; KM 11255:5-11; KM
11307:1-4; KM 11316:3-6
Pukkila, Falkki 669676 328931 669395 28922 Cairn? Undated Salonen 1927
Pukkila, Falkki 669669 328942 669388 28934 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 11470:1-2; KM Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 203
20322:1-15; KM 20906:1-3
Pukkila, Falkki Stray find Stone Age Moision kansakoulun Hirviluoto 1991: 209
ko­koel­ma / Meritalon museo
Pukkila, Haavisto Stray find Stone Age? KM 23302
Pukkila, Kovaskallio 669654 328973 669373 28964 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pukkila, Kovaskallio 669654 328973 669373 28964 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pukkila, Kovaskallio 669653 328974 669372 28965 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pukkila, Kovaskallio Stray find Undated KM 8660:1
Pukkila, Kupparinpelto 669767 328828 669486 28820 Settlement site Stone Age KM 10566:31-32; KM Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 204
10625:1-2; KM 10836:5-6;
KM 10978:1-2; KM
11245:1; KM 23301:1
Pukkila, Kuusimaa 669664 329007 669383 28999 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 10338:9-11 Luho 1945 Hirviluoto 1991: 205
Pukkila, Lehmussaari Stray find Stone Age TMM 14899:1-10
Pukkila, Lehtiniitty 669818 328794 669537 28785 Settlement site Stone Age KM 10566:33-34; KM Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 204
11177:16; KM 11469
Pukkila, Leilä Stray find Stone Age KM 2794:44-47 Hirviluoto 1991: 207
Pukkila, Lintula 669557 328687 669276 28678 Settlement site? Stone Age
Pukkila, Lintula pihapelto 669583 328688 669302 28680 Settlement site Stone Age KM 9050:1,4 Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
 Pukkila, Myllypelto 669703 328796 669422 28787 Settlement site Stone Age CC, KM 10338:12; KM Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 53, 201-202
LNE/ 10498:12-15; KM 10566:
EBA 29-30; KM 10574:1-5; KM
10598:1-3; KM 10609:40-41;
KM 10625:7-8; KM 10723:9-
11; KM 10796:7-12; KM
10830:1-32; KM 10836:7-12;
KM 10978:15-34; KM
11029:1-22; KM 11177:10-
15; KM 11189:7-10; KM
11192:7-14; KM 11245:2,4-6
Pukkila, Myllypelto 669703 328796 669422 28787 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/ KM 11316:8 Hirviluoto 1991: 201-202
EBA
Pukkila, Noppila Stray find Stone Age KM 15428:1-5
Pukkila, Noppila Stray find Stone Age KM 17018:1-5
Pukkila, Perkiönpelto Stray find Stone Age KM 5598:5
Pukkila, Pikimäki Stray find Stone Age KM 3187:35
Pukkila, Pirtinpelto 669654 328761 669372 28753 Settlement site Stone Age BAT, KM 8790:2; KM 10348:1-2; Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 53, 202
LNE/ KM 10374:8-11; KM
EBA 10490:1; KM 10498:1-11,16;
KM 10566:1-9; KM 10598:6-
71, KM 10609:1-39; KM
10625:11-45; KM 10723:1-8;
KM 10978:4-9; KM 11177:7-
9; KM 11189:1-6; KM
11192:3-6; KM 11255:1-4
Pukkila, Rauhala 669736 328793 669455 28785 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 23300:1-2 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 204
Pukkila, Sinikallio 669590 328698 669309 28690 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 10625:9-10 Luho 1945 Hirviluoto 1991: 203
Pukkila, Sinivuori Settlement site? Stone Age KM 30600
Pukkila, Sinivuori I 669712 328818 669431 28810 Settlement site Stone Age CC, KM 4716:1-9; KM 5598:2-4,6- Tallgren 1906; Tallgren 1913; Hirviluoto 1991: 200
BAT 13; KM 6378:3-10; KM 6380:1- Europaeus 1923; Europaeus 1924;
22; KM 6759:3-8; KM 6762:1; Luho 1945; Raike 2001
KM 7300:2-4; KM 8315:1; KM
8316; KM 8579:1,3; KM 8676;
KM 8760:1; KM 8789:1; KM
8790:1; KM 8864:1-3; KM
10338:1-8; KM 10348:3-7; KM
10374:1-2,4-7; KM 10490:9,11-
15; KM 1059
Pukkila, Sinivuori I 669712 328818 669431 28810 Settlement site? Early Metal Period PRIA KM 6378:5; KM 10374:3; Hirviluoto 1991: 75-76, 200
KM 10490:10; KM 19740:1-7
Pukkila, Sinivuori II 669719 328820 669438 28812 Settlement site Stone Age KM 20661:1-2; KM Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 200-201
20662:1-38; KM 20663

553
 Pukkila, Sinivuori III 669718 328816 669437 28808 Settlement site Stone Age KM 20620:1-78; KM Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 201

554
20661:3-5; KM 20662:39-40
Pukkila, Sorronpelto 669590 328698 669309 28690 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 9050:2-3; KM 9819:1-5; Luho 1945; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
KM 10272:1-7; KM 10978:3
Raatihuoneen puisto Stray find TMM 13105:1
Rauvola, Kivihaka Stray find Bronze Age LNE/ KM 9305 Hirviluoto 1991: 66-67
EBA
Rauvola, Pajamäki Stray find Stone Age KM 28484
Rauvola, Peppursuo 669666 328316 669385 28308 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Saari Stray find Iron Age VA, CP Hirviluoto 1991: 185-186
Salo 669596 328372 669315 28364 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Salo 669596 328372 669315 28364 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Salo 669594 328375 669313 28367 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Salo Stray find Undated KM 11611
Salo, Andelinin torppa Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:9
Salo, Lukkarinmäki 670273 328661 669992 28653 Stray find Iron Age MER KM 8067A:1-42; KM Nordman 1922; Cleve 1930 Hirviluoto 1991: 152-156
9192:1-25
Salo, Nokkamäki 670221 328752 669940 28744 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 9849; KM 9985 Leppäaho 1934; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991
Salo, Pappilanhaka 670207 328621 669925 28613 Cemetery Iron Age KM 15691 Hirviluoto 1963; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 219
Salo, Pappilanhaka 670207 328621 669925 28613 Settlement site Iron Age KM 27206 Raike 2001
Salo, Peppursuo 669664 328314 669383 28306 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Salo, Suopellonmäki 669883 328409 669602 28401 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Salo, Uusiniitty 669879 328461 669597 28453 Stray find Stone Age KM 22501
Salo, Valhoja Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 16723
Salo, Viitan torppa Stray find Stone Age KM 3684:10
Sauvonkylä, Uusitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 2436:14
Supi Stray find Stone Age KM 6795:4
Toijala, Myllymäki 670432 328560 670150 28552 Cairn? Iron Age KM 19641; KM 27663 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 219
Tottola Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 4593:1
Tottola Stray find Stone Age KM 4730:1
Ullenböle, Ilmusmäki 669853 328690 669572 28682 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991; Tuovinen &
Vuorinen 1992
Uoti 670841 329036 670559 29027 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32837:1-5 Raike 2001
Varesvuori 670436 328488 670155 28480 Cairn? Undated Brusila 2006
Veitakkala 670738 328973 670456 28964 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 18394 Hirviluoto 1971; Edgren 1973;
Schauman-Lönnqvist et al.  1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 70;
Hirviluoto 1991: 173-174
 Veitakkala 670772 328970 670490 28962 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 2436:20 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 70-
71; Hirviluoto 1991: 172
Veitakkala, Hankala 670845 328878 670563 28869 Settlement site Stone Age KM 32842:1-3 Raike 2001
Veitakkala, Jumbrosund 670802 329004 670521 28995 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 32839:1-8 Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 219
Veitakkala, Junttila 670778 328977 670496 28968 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 32840:1-2 Raike 2001
Veitakkala, Linnamäki 670817 328912 670535 28904 Cairn Bronze Age LNE/ Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 63; Tuovinen &
EBA Vuorinen 1992
Veitakkala, Linnamäki 670815 328912 670533 28904 Hillfort? Iron Age? KM 2435:11,13 Salonen 1927; Raike 2001 Schauman-Lönnqvist et al 1986;
Schauman-Lönnqvist 1989: 71-
72; Hirviluoto 1991: 181, 223
Veitakkala, Peltoniemi Settlement site? Stone Age KM 25707
Veitakkala, Puutarha 670762 328974 670480 28965 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32841:1-4 Raike 2001
Villilä Stray find Stone Age KM 6800:1
Villilä, Kankare Stray find Stone Age KM 16893:1-2
Villilä, Lehtiranta ** 669550 328714 669268 28706 Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 7109 Europaeus 1917 Hirviluoto 1991: 67
Villilä, Mäki Stray find Undated KM 11468
Villilä, Mäntylä Stray find Stone Age? KM 16896
Villilä, Rannoja Stray find Stone Age KM 11316:1
Villilä, Tomma Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 8660:2
Villilä, Tomma Stray find Stone Age KM 8760:2
Villilä, Toukola Stray find Undated KM 16894
Villilä, Villajärvi Stray find Stone Age KM 2794:42
Vuohensaari 670109 328320 669828 28312 Undefined Undated Asplund 1998
Ylhäisi Stray find Stone Age KM 10898
Ylhäisi, Metsäranta 670072 328611 669791 28603 Cemetery Iron Age MIG KM 10832:1-5; KM 10881:1-6 Leppäaho 1939; Raike 2001 Hirviluoto 1991: 117, 219
Yli-Koski, Umpaidan pelto Stray find Stone Age? KM 11471:10

555
556
Sauvo
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 1754:1
Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 1754:2
Stray find Stone Age KM 22803
Stray find? Stone Age KM 5573:1-4
Stray find Stone Age KM 7511
Stray find? Stone Age Korpelan kansakoulu
Stray find? Stone Age Korpelan kansakoulu
Stray find? Stone Age Korpelan kansakoulu
Stray find? Stone Age Korpelan kansakoulu
Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1123
Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1279
Stray find? Stone Age? Sauvon kotis.museo 1945
Stray find Stone Age Sauvon kotis.museo 1946
Stray find Stone Age Sauvon kotis.museo 1947
Undefined Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1948
Stray find Stone Age Sauvon kotis.museo 1949
Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1951
Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1952
Non-site Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1953
Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1954
Non-site Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1956
Stray find Stone Age Sauvon kotis.museo 1957
Non-site Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1959
Undefined Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1961
Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1962
Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1963
Stray find Stone Age TMM 30
Stray find Stone Age TMM 31
Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 4
Stray find Stone Age TMM 45
Stray find Stone Age BAT TMM 5
Stray find Iron Age TMM 91
Stray find Iron Age TMM 92
 Alsila, Martböle Stray find Stone Age Alsilan kansakoulu
Alsila, Martböle Stray find Stone Age Alsilan kansakoulu
Alsila, Martböle Stray find Stone Age KM 5251:2
Amböle, Marike Stray find Stone Age KM 10385
Brännkärr Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 6025:1
Danskulla 669850 325838 669569 25831 Settlement site Stone Age KM 30214:1-4; 32490 Bilund 1997; Raike 2001
Etelämäki, Brotta Stray find Stone Age Ruonan kansakoulu
Etelämäki, Brotta Stray find Undated Ruonan kansakoulu
Etelämäki, Brotta Stray find Stone Age Sauvon kotis.museo 1958
Falskeri Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 31794
Finnkulla, Loitinpaltta Stray find Stone Age KM 12455
Finnkulla, Loitinpaltta Stray find Undated KM 14970
Finnkulla, Loitinpaltta 669450 326859 669169 26851 Stray find Medieval KM 14973 Waris 1960 Luoto 1990b: 63-64, Kuva 34
Finnkulla, Loitinpaltta Stray find Stone Age? Ruonan kansakoulu
Finnkulla, Loitinpaltta Stray find Undated Ruonan kansakoulu
Finnkulla, Ruonan kansakoulu Stray find Undated Ruonan kansakoulu
Finskilä 670014 326148 669733 26141 Cairn? Undated Hirviluoto 1965; Raike 2001
Finskilä, Ala-Junnola 669970 326166 669689 26159 Cemetery Iron Age ERA, KM 13465:1-35; KM Salmo 1954; Waris 1960; Hir- Salo 1968; Luoto 1990b: 48-54
LRA 13850:1-7; KM 14496:1-9; viluoto 1965; Lehtosalo 1967;
KM 16391:1-2; KM Lehtosalo 1968; Raike 2001
17309:1-17
Finskilä, Ali-Junnola ** 669979 326158 669697 26151 Stray find Iron Age? Ala-Junnolan kokoelmat Luoto 1990b: 54
Gripsböle Stray find Bronze Age TMM A99
Haanniemi, Långas 669404 325110 669123 25103 Undefined Undated Raike 2001
Haarakallio, Kalamäki ** 669856 326211 669575 26204 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 4681; KM 4810:1-2 Rinne 1906; Waris 1960 Luoto 1990b: 57-59
Haavisto 1 670020 326420 669739 26412 Cemetery Iron Age KM 32504:1-2 Raike 2001
Haavisto 2 670026 326428 669745 26421 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 28167; KM 32505 Raike 2001
Haavisto 3 670024 326410 669742 26403 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32506:1-4 Raike 2001
Hallela, Alitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 14971
Hallela, Pappilan lohkotila 669944 326377 669662 26369 Cemetery? Iron Age? Waris 1960; Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 57
Hallela, Sotilasvirkatalo ** 669955 326405 669674 26398 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 15795 Waris 1960
Hallela, Takahaka 669937 326366 669656 26358 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32496 Raike 2001
Inkiniemi, Rauhala 669223 326809 668942 26801 Stray find Stone Age KM 15796:1-2 Waris 1960; Raike 2001
Iso-Mäkipää 670046 325864 669765 25857 Settlement site Stone Age BAT KM 30918:1-2; 32491:1-4 Raike 2001
Iso-Mäkipää, Varasvuori 670013 325816 669732 25809 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Waris 1960; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Järvenkylä, Nummi 669686 326978 669405 26970 Non-site Undated Seppänen 1977
Järvenkylä, Åkerström 669567 326994 669286 26987 Non-site Undated Seppänen 1977

557
 Kalainen, Heinilä 670239 326634 669958 26627 Stray find Stone Age KM 17848 Koskimies 1968; Raike 2001

558
Kalaisi Stray find Stone Age Saustilan kansakoulu
Karunan kartano, Muurainsuo Stray find Stone Age KM 14968
Kaslahti Non-site Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 604
Kirkonkylä Cup-marked stone? Iron Age?
Kirkonkylä, Isotalo Stray find Medieval KM 4189:4
Kirkonkylä, Kallinsuo ** 669773 326395 669492 26387 Stray find Iron Age KM 14972 Waris 1960
Kirkonkylä, Kallinsuo Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 8052 Waris 1960 Luoto 1990b: 29-30, Kuva 13
Kirkonkylä, Kalmasmäenpelto 669997 326211 669715 26203 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 32494:1-3 Raike 2001
Kirkonkylä, Kalmasmäki Cup-marked stone? Iron Age?
Kirkonkylä, Kalmasmäki 669986 326224 669704 26217 Cemetery Iron Age KM 32492; TYA 114:1-8 Seppänen 1978; Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 54
Kirkonkylä, Keskitalo Stray find Undated KM 18201
Kirkonkylä, Kirkonmäentie * 669996 326237 669715 26229 Settlement site Iron Age KM 28164; KM Raike 2001
32502:1-3
Kirkonkylä, Pappila Undefined Undated Waris 1960
Kirkonkylä, Pappila 669997 326305 669716 26297 Stray find Medieval KM 4162:
Kirkonkylä, Pappila 669997 326305 669716 26297 Cemetery Iron Age MER, VA KM 4162:1-40 Waris 1960; Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 54-56
Kirkonkylä, Pappilan Stray find Iron Age KM 4162:41
Isoniittu
Kirkonkylä, Pappilanpelto 670015 326334 669733 26327 Undefined Undated KM 32493:1-3 Raike 2001
Kirkonkylä, Puosnummi Stray find Stone Age Sauvon yhteiskoulu
Kirkonkylä, Timperi 670025 326197 669744 26190 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 32503:1-4 Raike 2001
Koorila Stray find Stone Age BAT Saustilan kansakoulu
Korpela, Etelärinne Stray find Undated KM 14969
Korpela, Maila Stray find Stone Age KM 5251:1
Korvala 669994 325940 669713 25933 Stray find Iron Age ERA KM
Korvala Stray find Iron Age ERA KM 25783
Korvala 669919 325905 669638 25897 Cemetery Iron Age PRIA, KM 29710:1-17; KM Schauman-Lönnqvist 1998; Raike
ERA 30303:1-37; KM 30891; 2001
31522; KM 31696
Koski, Simola Stray find Stone Age KM 6547:1
Kupiluoto, Katevuo 669019 325501 668738 25494 Stray find Undated KM 26074
Kärkiniemi, Kärkiniemen Stray find Undated KM 9299:5
kartano
Kärkkinen, Nuorisoseurantalo 669312 325579 669031 25571 Inscription Post-Medieval
Kärkkinen, Seplahti Stray find Stone Age SatM 2136
Launila Non-site Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1955
 Lautkankare, Alitalo Stray find Stone Age KM 4189:1
Lautkankare, Linnamäki Stray find Iron Age MER KM 17295 Luoto 1990b: 44, Kuva 20
Lautkankare, Linnamäki 670124 326065 669843 26058 Hillfort Early Metal Period PRIA TYA 139:1-72; TYA Waris 1960; Luoto 1979; Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 36-44
541:1-2
Lautkankare, Linnamäki 670112 326068 669830 26060 Settlement site Iron Age TYA 139:73-147 Luoto 1979; Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 36-44
Lautkankare, Mäntylä 670166 326110 669885 26103 Cemetery? Iron Age VA KM 16712:1-4; KM Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 43
17297:1-2
Lautkankare, Mäntylä Stray find Iron Age VA TYA 139:158 Luoto 1990b: 43
Lautkankare, Vallerinoja 670106 326069 669824 26062 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 139:154-157 Luoto 1979 Luoto 1990b: 44
Lehmisalmi, Kraatarbacka 669602 327056 669321 27048 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age Waris 1960; Raike 2001
Liivala, Myllypelto Cup-marked stone? Iron Age
Liivala, Myllypelto 670053 326398 669772 26390 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 28166; KM 32497:1-3 Raike 2001
Marju Stray find Stone Age KM 6025:2
Mäenala 669866 326269 669585 26261 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 9243:1-5 Tallgren 1930; Waris 1960 Luoto 1990b: 59-60
Mäntykylä 669612 326401 669331 26393 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 16735:299; KM Koskimies 1966; Raike 2001
17066:232-233; KM 32488
Mäntykylä Stray find Stone Age Sauvon yhteiskoulu
Mäntykylä Stray find Stone Age Sauvon yhteiskoulu
Mäntykylä, Danskintie 669629 326423 669348 26416 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 32495:1-2 Raike 2001
Mäntykylä, Nummenharju 669662 326398 669381 26390 Settlement site Stone Age CC KM 16735:1-298; KM Hirviluoto 1965; Koskimies 1966; Luoto 1990b: 14-16
17066:1-231; KM Koskimies 1966; Raike 2001
17694:1-8; KM 20146:1-5;
TYA 165:1-14; Sauvon
yhteiskoulun kokoelmat
Orssaari, Isotalo 669487 325050 669206 25043 Undefined Undated Brusila 1987
Osmalahti Stray find Stone Age KM 1942
Osmalahti, Övergård Stray find Stone Age KM 8644
Osmanlahti Stray find Iron Age VA KM 15099 Luoto 1990b: 63
Osmanlahti, Poutanen 670071 325569 669790 25562 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1967; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Paddainen, Sandvik 670214 325707 669933 25700 Mound Undated Waris 1960; Raike 2001
Paddainen, Tryskä 670250 325776 669969 25768 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 15794 Waris 1960 Luoto 1990b: 62-63
Palosuo, Palosuonmäki 669169 326390 668888 26383 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Waris 1960; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pappila Stray find Iron Age KM 28165
Pappila, Jokipellonlato 1 670001 326348 669720 26341 Cairn Iron Age KM 32498:1-3 Raike 2001
Pappila, Jokipellonlato 2 670006 326355 669725 26348 Cairn Iron Age KM 32507 Raike 2001
Pappila, Kyynäräinen Mound Undated ERA, VA Luoto 1990b: 56
Pappila, Kyynäräinen 669995 326329 669714 26322 Stray find Iron Age Kyynäräisen kokoelma Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 56
Pappila, Kyynäräisen kaivopelto Stray find Iron Age KM 32510 Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 56

559
 Pappila, Kyynäräisen metsä 670013 326351 669732 26344 Cairn? Undated Raike 2001

560
Pappila, Kyynäräisen mökki 670024 326341 669743 26334 Settlement site Early Metal Period KM 32499:1-4; TYA 503:1-2 Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 18
Pappila, Kyynäräisen 669995 326329 669714 26322 Settlement site Iron Age KM 32501:1-4; Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 56
yläpelto Kyynäräi­sen kokoelma
Pappila, Navettapelto 670023 326319 669742 26312 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 32500:1-2 Raike 2001
Patarautela, Keskitalo Stray find Stone Age BAT KM 6989:1-2
Patarautila Stray find Stone Age Korpelan kansakoulu
Patarautila Stray find Stone Age Korpelan kansakoulu
Patarautila, Keskitalo 669971 326804 669690 26796 Stray find Stone Age KM 29613 Anttila 1996
Pelli Stray find Undated W. J. Kallion kokoelma 3
Raitaniemi, Raitniemi 669516 326081 669235 26073 Stray find Bronze Age LNE/EBA KM 30213
Rajalahti, Rajalahti 1 668971 326364 668691 26357 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1999; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rajalahti, Rajalahti 2 668963 326373 668682 26366 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1999; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rajalahti, Soreala 668962 326355 668681 26348 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1999; Raike 2001
Rajalahti, Tankomäki a 668973 326423 668692 26415 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1999; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rajalahti, Tankomäki b 668973 326428 668692 26420 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1999; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Rajalahti, Tankomäki c 668973 326431 668693 26423 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1999; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ristniemi 669430 326188 669149 26181 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ristniemi, Kotirinne 669448 326123 669167 26115 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Miskerinmäki 669399 326180 669117 26173 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Pellonpää 669436 326145 669155 26138 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 12333:1-4 Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Luoto 1990b: 32; Tuovinen &
Raike 2001 Vuorinen 1992
Ristniemi, Pellonpää 2 669413 326149 669132 26142 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Rantametsä 669472 326092 669191 26084 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Ullaskrooppi 669423 326192 669142 26184 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vikkula 1982; Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Ullaskrooppi 669427 326187 669146 26179 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Ullaskrooppi 669428 326193 669147 26186 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Ullaskrooppi 2 669429 326200 669148 26193 Settlement site? Early Metal Period KM 29307 Bilund 1996; Raike 2001
Ristniemi, Yliristniemi 669431 326189 669150 26182 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Leppäaho 1950; Waris 1960; Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Raike 2001
Runagård, Isoluoto 669089 326989 668808 26981 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ruonlahti, Huusinmäki 669931 325530 669650 25522 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Koskimies 1967; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Ruonlahti, Koivumäki 670016 325596 669735 25588 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Waris 1960; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ruonlahti, Koivumäki 670018 325601 669737 25594 Cairn? Undated Koskimies 1967 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Ryttarböle, Ratsula ** 669796 326604 669515 26597 Stray find? Stone Age? Koskimies 1969
Ryttarböle, Treskeri ** 669741 326542 669459 26534 Stray find? Stone Age? Koskimies 1969
Salmensuu Stray find Undated Sauvon kotis.museo 1960
Salmi, Myllymäki 670082 326081 669801 26074 Cemetery Iron Age VA KM 4810:3; KM 5204:1- Rinne 1906; Appelgren-Kivalo Luoto 1990b: 44-47
42; KM 32489; TMM 1909; Hackman 1909; Waris 1960;
6356; TMM 6357 Raike 2001
Salmi, Säkkäränkankare 670164 326142 669882 26135 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 32509:1-3 Raike 2001
Salmi, Säkkäränkankare 670168 326141 669887 26133 Cemetery? Iron Age KM 8694:1-5 Appelgren-Kivalo 1909; Tallgren Luoto 1990b: 43
1926; Waris 1960; Raike 2001
Saustila Undefined Historical Period TYA 115
Saustila, Jokimaa 670436 326543 670154 26536 Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 30796
Saustila, Vehka-alho Stray find Stone Age Saustilan kansakoulu
Suojala Stray find Stone Age Alsilan kansakoulu
Talinkylä, Päivärinne 669393 326799 669112 26792 Undefined Undated Brusila 1983
Teininki, Koivumaa 669551 325353 669270 25346 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995; Raike 2001
Teininki, Steninge (a) 669701 325368 669420 25361 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995; Raike 2001
Teininki, Steninge (b) 669701 325366 669420 25359 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Brusila 1995; Raike 2001
Teininki, Uusitalo 669499 325381 669218 25374 Stray find Undated KM
Tiikarla, Rantakallio 669777 325366 669496 25359 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Waris 1960; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Timarinjärvi ** 669035 325979 668754 25971 Stray find Iron Age VA Sally Oksasen kokoelmat Luoto 1990b: 63, Kuva 33
Timperlä 670183 326475 669902 26467 Cup-marked stone Iron Age?
Timperlä 670183 326495 669901 26487 Settlement site? Stone Age KM 28169:1-2,4-7 Bilund 1994; Raike 2001
Timperlä 670183 326495 669901 26487 Settlement site? Iron Age? KM 28169:3 Bilund 1994; Raike 2001
Timperlä 670170 326502 669889 26495 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 28169:8-9 Bilund 1994; Raike 2001
Vahtinen, Möyrymäki 670027 326184 669746 26177 Cemetery Iron Age ERA, LRA TYA 227:1-13 Luoto & Riikonen 1984; Raike 2001 Luoto 1990b: 47-48
Vartsalo, Teitunpyöli 669925 325874 669644 25867 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age Waris 1960
Vesti, Pajakankare 669474 326126 669193 26119 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Waris 1960; Raike 2001 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Vähäkylä, Jokiniitty 670063 326412 669782 26405 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 32508 Raike 2001
Vähäkylä, Päivärinta ** 670010 326509 669729 26501 Stray find Undated
Vähäkylä, Silkkilänjärvi 670008 326610 669727 26602 Stray find Iron Age VA KM 16742 Waris 1960; Koskimies 1965 Luoto 1990b: 62
Vähäkylä, Tuulimäki 670061 326458 669780 26451 Settlement site? Iron Age KM 28168 Raike 2001
Vähä-Mäkipää, Riihipelto 670131 326037 669850 26029 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Asplund 1996; Raike 2001
Vähä-Mäkipää, Riihipelto 670131 326035 669850 26027 Cup-marked stone Iron Age? Tuovinen 1977; Luoto 1979;
Asplund 1996; Raike 2001
Vähä-Mäkipää, Riihipelto 670131 326035 669850 26027 Stray find Iron Age? TYA 139:148-153 Luoto 1979; Asplund 1996

561
562
Särkisalo
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Aisböle, Talkkarmäki 667670 327613 667389 27605 Settlement site Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 33306:1-2 Ruohonen 2002
Falkberg, Saapasmäki 667707 327293 667427 27286 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Falkki, Falkinpelto 667731 327324 667450 27316 Stray find Iron Age KM 33309 Ruohonen 2002
Finby, Puosi 667292 327565 667012 27557 Pit-trap? Undated Ruohonen 2002
Finby, Puosinkallio 667269 327578 666988 27570 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tallgren 1931: 112; Granblom &
Häggblom 1969: 2; Tuovinen &
Vuorinen 1992
Finby, Puosinkallio 667269 327578 666988 27570 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002
Finby, Puosinkallio 667269 327578 666988 27570 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002
Finnari, Mikonhuhta 667658 327457 667377 27450 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Finnari, Puunokka 667625 327460 667344 27452 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Förby, Pettu Stray find Undated KM 15506 Ruohonen 2002
Gråböle, Kraila 667295 328030 667015 28022 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age Ruohonen 2002
Hästö, Lehmihaka 667594 327973 667314 27965 Harbour Historical Period Ruohonen 2002
Hästö, Sudenkuoppanummi 667655 328114 667374 28106 Pit-trap Historical Period Ruohonen 2002
Isoluoto, Ryssänmäki S 667168 327247 666888 27239 Settlement site? Historical Period Ruohonen 2002
Kaukassalo, Isotalo Stray find Stone Age KM 2025:9 Ruohonen 2002
Kaukassalo, Pyölinmäki 667476 327721 667196 27713 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kaukosalo, Klintinmäki 667326 327629 667046 27621 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kirkonkylä Stray find Stone Age KM 12812 Ruohonen 2002
Mondola, Härkähaka 1 667690 327668 667410 27660 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Mondola, Härkähaka 2 667689 327669 667409 27661 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Muuri 667274 327247 666993 27239 Inscription Undated Ruohonen 2002
Muurinkylä Stray find Undated KM 12710
Muurinkylä, Grönbacka Stray find Stone Age KM 3104:4 Ruohonen 2002
Seppälänkylä, Vähäjärvi 667746 327692 667466 27684 Boat find Undated Ruohonen 2002
Seppälänmäki 667683 327758 667403 27750 Settlement site? Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 33307 Ruohonen 2002
Seppälänmäki, Korkmäki 667779 327576 667499 27568 Settlement site? Historical Period Ruohonen 2002
Siksalo, Stufsund Stray find Medieval Granblom & Häggblom 1969: 5
Suutarkylä 667450 327415 667170 27407 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Ruohonen 2002 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tessvärr, Gropbukten 666796 326953 666516 26945 Settlement site Historical Period Ruohonen 2002
 Västanfjärd
Site name X0 Y0 E-X E-Y Type General dating Period Catalogue num. Report references Literature
Engströms torp Mound? Undated Planting 1933
Galtarby, Galtarby I 666875 325207 666595 25200 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 477:1-8 Asplund 1989
Galtarby, Galtarby II 666956 325353 666676 25346 Settlement site Stone Age BAT TYA 478:1-21 Asplund 1989; Asplund 1989
Galtarby, Galtarby III 666976 325372 666696 25365 Stray find Stone Age TYA 477:9 Asplund 1989
Galtarby, Galtarby IV 666990 325407 666710 25400 Stray find Stone Age TYA 477:10 Asplund 1989
Galtarby, Galtarby V 666776 325064 666496 25058 Stray find Stone Age TYA 477:11-14 Asplund 1989
Galtarby, Galtarby VI Settlement site? Stone Age TYA 661:1-3
Galtarby, Råberget 666821 325141 666541 25134 Settlement site Stone Age TYA 376:1-6, TYA Asplund 1987; Asplund 1988
390:1-10
Galtarby, Råberget ** 666829 325133 666549 25126 Quarry Undated TYA 390:11 Asplund 1988
Hagman Stray find Undated KM kt 7843:4
Kobböle, Kilskullan ** 667129 325932 666849 25925 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kobböle, Kilskullan ** 667129 325932 666849 25925 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kobböle, Kilskullan ** 667129 325937 666849 25930 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Kobböle, Lyckeberget 667115 325835 666835 25828 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Misskärr 666762 325749 666482 25742 Settlement site Stone Age CC TYA 647:1-9, TYA 648:1-
2, TYA 660:1-3
Misskärr ** 666771 325765 666491 25758 Quarry Undated TYA 660:4
Nivelax 667246 325747 666965 25740 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nivelax 667245 325746 666964 25739 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nivelax 667246 325745 666966 25738 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nivelax, Frömbärssviden ** 667174 325714 666894 25707 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Nivelax, Norrgård Stray find Undated KM 11588
Nordgård Stray find Undated KM kt 9239:1
Norrlammala, Lillskogen 666716 325950 666436 25943 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2503A:24 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Norrlammala, Lillskogen 666717 325947 666437 25940 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age KM 2503A:25 Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Pörtsnäs, Norra Mågsholm 666372 325624 666092 25617 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sirnäs, Söderviken 666561 325551 666281 25543 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Sirnäs, Söderviken 666560 325553 666280 25545 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tappo ** 667248 325847 666968 25840 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tappo, Slätängskullan ** 667248 325847 666968 25840 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Tappo, Storängen Stray find Bronze Age KM 9749:1
Tappo, Storängen Stray find Stone and/or Bronze Age KM 9919

563
 Tappo, Vesteräng 667257 325751 666977 25743 Cairn? Bronze and/or Iron Age Kankkunen 1996

564
Tappo, Vesteräng 667260 325749 666979 25741 Settlement site Early Metal Period PRIA TYA 514:1-92, KM Asplund 1991; Kankkunen 1996
28416:1-48
Tappo, Ångkärrsbergen 667181 325884 666901 25877 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östanå Stray find Undated KM kt 7843:2
Östanå Stray find Undated KM kt 7843:3
Östanå ** 667063 325839 666783 25832 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
Östanå, Norrgård Stray find Undated KM 9920
Östanå, Norrkulla Stray find Bronze Age LBA KM 11588
Östanå, Södergårdskvarn 667049 325724 666769 25717 Cairn Bronze and/or Iron Age Tuovinen & Vuorinen 1992
 Appendix 2

Teija Alenius

The palaeoecological study of three mires

on the island Kemiönsaari, SW Finland

Introduction

From an archaeological point of view the island Kemiönsaari is considered to be

a margin area because it almost totally lacks Iron Age artefacts. This is typical
for southwestern Finland as a whole, as indications of Iron Age settlement are
concentrated to the major river valleys on the mainland, whereas in the archipelago
and further inland they became rare. On Kemiönsaari archaeologically identifiable
settlement continuation similar to that of the mainland can be followed from the
late Mesolithic (ca. 6500 cal BC) to the Early Iron Age (ca. 500-1 BC). After this, only
sporadic finds indicating land-use are recorded (Asplund 1997). From the Viking
Age (800-1050 AD) onwards, signs of human activity in the area, as well as in the
archipelago in general, increase somewhat (cf. Asplund 2000; 2001). According to
archaeological evidence, one possible interpretation is that settlement during the
Iron Age may have moved further north to the river valleys on the mainland and
returned in the Late Iron Age or in the Middle Ages.
According to archaeological artefacts, it is difficult to draw conclusions about
continuity of settlement since the Early Iron Age. Previous pollen analyses carried
out indicate that slash-and-burn cultivation was practised in the archipelago about
2000 cal BC and in Kemiö Rugnola in the northern part of Kemiönsaari about 1600
BC. Cultivation in permanent fields started in Kemiö in the 10th century (Asplund
& Vuorela 1989; Vuorela 1990). The aim of this paper is to study the early stages of
land use by means of pollen analysis of peat and sediment deposits and complement
the picture of earlier pollen analysis. The study aims to shed light onto the problem
of whether the lack of archaeological material is connected with a diminishing
population or whether there are indications of settlement during the time period
between 1-1000 AD when the archaeological material is scarce.

565
Investigation area and study sites

Kemiönsaari (Kemiö Island) lies in southwestern Finland in the archipelago of

Turku between 60° 00’ and 60° 30’ E, and 22° 00’ and 23° 00’ N (Fig. 1). It is located
in the flat coastal zone where the highest points of the terrain reach an elevation of
86 m a.s.l. The differences in relative heights usually range from 20 to 30 m. In the
southern part of the island bedrock consists of granite and in the southern part of
the island quartz-feldspar schist and gneiss dominate. The area is mainly composed
of exposed bedrock and basal till. Deposits of clay well suited for cultivation occur
largely in the area. Salpausselkä III extends fragmented to Kemiönsaari (Kielosto
et al.1996).
Continental ice sheet retreated from Kemiönsaari about 11,200 years ago
(Saarnisto & Saarinen 2001). After deglaciation Kemiönsaari was submerged by
the Baltic Ice Lake and went through all the main stages of evolution of the Baltic
Sea (Björk 1995) until finally exposed from the Litorina Sea. Litorina transgression
resulted from the rising global sea level in areas where the rate of land uplift was
slower than the rate of sea-level rise. There is no exact shoreline displacement data
for Kemiönsaari, but the shoreline displacement curve for the Tammisaari – Perniö
area (Eronen et al. 2001) suggests that as a result of the glacio-isostatic land uplift
low lying basins between 17 and 12 m a.s.l. were isolated from the Litorina Sea
stage between 3800 and 2700 cal BP.

Fig 1. General map of Kemiönsaari and the location of former and present study sites.

566
 The former study sites, the mire of Ilsokärret and the mire of Mossdalen
(Asplund & Vuorela 1989) are situated in the northern part of the island. The present
study sites (Fig. 2) were selected to complement the picture provided by the former
pollen analysis and to provide information from the southern and central part of
the island.

Mire of Gärdorna

Gärdorna (X = 6674,46, Y = 2426,98) is a sedge pine swamp situated in the municipality

of Kemiö ca 2.5 km east of the centre of Kemiö (Basic Map 2012 03). The bog is about
14 ha and the altitude of the basin is at 15 m a.s.l. It is affected by drainage and
at present dominated by pine and birch mixed with some spruce. Archaeological
material indicates settlement in the village of Makila in the Early Iron Age ca. 500-1
BC. There are several Bronze Age or Iron Age cairns in the vicinity of the Gärdorna
bog situated on the hilltops (Fig 2A). Charcoal pieces from two excavated cairns at
Majberget, about 1.5 km from the sampling site have been radiocarbon dated. The

Fig. 2. Detailed maps of location of sites studied. A: Mire of Gärdorna, B; Mire

of Labböleträsket, C: Mire of Söderbyträsket

567
results 1115 ± 35 BP (GrA-14115) and 1215 ± 55 BP (Ua-18804) suggest a dating of
both cairns to the Late Iron Age, most probably the Viking Age or (in the latter case)
the end of the Merovingian Period or the Viking Age.

Mire of Labböleträsket

Labböleträsket (X = 66647,82, Y = 2429,73) situated in the municipality of Västanfjärd

is at an altitude of 12.3 m a.s.l. and about 12 ha in size (Basic Map 2012 02). The former
lake of Labböleträsket is strongly affected by a recent ditching. The open water area
has nowadays totally dried up and is currently dominated by Typha, Phragmites,
Carex and Cuspidata. Labböleträsket drains into the bog of Hjortronmossen, a dwarf-
shrub pine bog on the southwestern side of Labböleträsket. The archaeological
record provides evidence of habitation since the late Stone Age Kiukainen Culture.
One Bronze Age cairn is situated about 1.1 km north at an elevation above 20 m
a.s.l. (Fig. 2B). The Pre-Roman settlement site in Tappo is situated about 5.5 km
west of the sample site.

Mire of Söderbyträsket

Söderbyträsket (X = 6661,19, Y = 1580,01) is a flooded lake with a surface area of

11 ha at an altitude of 17.1 m a.s.l. situated in the municipality of Dragsfjärd ca. 1
km west from the Hammarsboda village (Basic Map 1034 11 and 1034 14). It is a
treeless meso-eutrophic sedge fen with Cuspidata, Potentilla palustris, Peucedanum
palustre and Vaccinium oxycoccos common (Fig. 2C). Within a distance of about 0.5
km a couple of Stone Age settlement sites representing the Comb Ceramic Culture
as well as the Battle Axe Culture have been found. About 1.5 km west of the
sample site the Late Neolithic settlement sites as well as the Bronze Age cairns and
settlement site of Hammarsboda are located. To the east, settlement sites and cairns
of approximately the same age can be found in the villages of Kärra and Söderby
at a distance of about 1.5 km.

Methods

Sediment coring was carried out during 2002-2004. From Labböleträsket, sediment
was first cored from ice in March 2002 with a light model of a piston corer (profile
A). Cores obtained consisted of three overlapping sediment sequences (100-257 cm,
253-400 cm, 320-463 cm). Due to the recent drainage of Labbölerträsket, the piston
cores were not suitable for collecting the uppermost metre and a hiatus between
56-70 cm was detected. Additional samples from the same location were collected

568
 Fig. 3. Loss-on-ignition (LOI) of the study sites.

from the surface between 10-170 cm using a Russian peat sampler (profile B). From
the mires of Gärdorna and Söderbyträsket sediment were cored during summer
using a Russian peat sampler. Cores consisted of 50 cm long partially overlapping
profiles. All the samples were stored in cold room +4º C temperature at the sediment
laboratory of the Geological Survey of Finland.
The treatment for pollen samples followed standard procedures, with KOH,
acetolysis and HF treatments (Berglund & Ranska-Jasiewiczowa 1986). The
pollen samples were mounted with safranin-stained glycerol. Lycopodium spores
(Stockmarr 1971) where added for concentration calculation of pollen and charcoal
particles (Bennett & Willis 2001; Whitlock & Larsen 2001). About 500 arboreal pollen
grains (AP) where counted from each subsample. Identification of the pollen was
based on the literature: Faegri and Iversen (1989), Moore et al. (1991) and Reille
(1992; 1995). The pollen percentages of land pollen are calculated from the basic
sum of terrestrial pollen grains, P=AP (arboreal pollen) + NAP (non arboreal pollen).
The aquatic pollen and spores are calculated from the sums P + Aquatics and P +
Spores. Organic content of the sediment was measured by loss-on-ignition (LOI).
LOI was determined from 1 to 3 cm resolution by burning dried (105º C) sediment
samples in a furnace for 2 hours at 550º C (Bengtsson & Enell 1986). Dating of the

569
 LABBÖLETRÄSKET, VÄSTANFJÄRD

570
profile B

Fig. 4. Mire of Labböleträsket, profile B. Pollen percentages of selected taxa, charcoal particle concentrations and total pollen concentration values
(grains cm-3).
 LABBÖLETRÄSKET, VÄSTANFJÄRD
profile A and B

Fig. 5. Mire of Labböleträsket. Selected pollen and spore frequencies expressed as percentages. Pollen diagram constructed from profile A (420-169
cm) and profile B (10-170 cm).

571
 GÄRDORNA, KEMIÖ

572
Fig. 6. Mire of Gärdorna. Selected pollen and spore frequencies expressed as percentages.
 SÖDERBYTRÄSKET, DRAGSFJÄRD

Fig. 7. Pollen percentages of selected pollen and spore taxa from the mire of Söderbyträsket.

573
pollen profiles was based on altogether nine AMS 14C determinations performed
on 1 cm thick sediment samples at the Poznań radiocarbon laboratory (Table 1).
Calibration of the 14C-data was carried out according to Calib Rev 5.0.1 (Stuiver &
Reimer 1993) using the Intcal 04.14c calibration data set (Reimer et al. 2004). Linear
interpolation was used to estimate dates between available calibrated dates. It must
be emphasized that dates obtained by linear interpolation are only very robust
time estimations and must be interpreted with caution.
In Labböleträsket pollen analysis was performed between 10-413 cm. When
constructing the pollen diagram, profile B (Fig. 4) was used between 10-169 cm and
profile A (Fig. 5) between 173-413 cm. In Gärdorna pollen analysis was performed
from the 300 cm upwards when the sediment properties suggest the lagoon-like
isolation phase (Fig. 6). Söderbyträsket (Fig. 7) was analysed between 30-200 cm
which represent the phase after the area had emerged from the Litorina sea.

Results

Lithology and radiocarbon dates

The sediment profiles of the studied basins can be divided into five different
lithostratigraphical units based on LOI (Fig. 3). Homogenous clay is only detected
at Gärdorna in the bottom of the core between 380-346 cm. In the lithological
record of Labböleträsket and Söderbyträsket, organic-rich clay-gyttja is detected in
Labböleträsket between 456-119 cm and in Söderbyträsket between 349 cm and 211
cm, obviously representing the Litorina Sea.
The current rate of annual uplift in the Tammisaari – Perniö area is 4-5 mm/yr
(Kääriäinen 1963). As a result of the rapid glacio-isostatic land uplift the relative sea
level fell progressively. In the Gärdorna case Litorina fine detritus gyttja between
the levels of 347-244 cm suggests that the sediment had still been deposited in
relatively deep water. Apparently the isolation of Gärdorna was a gradual process
and the basin was a shallow, brackish water lagoon-like basin with a shallow
connection to the sea. In Labböleträsket and Söderbyträskert, isolation proceeded
more rapidly. The change from clay gyttja to fine detritus gyttja is in Labböleträsket
detected between 119-95 cm and in Söderbyträsket the change takes place even
more rapidly at around 211 cm.
The final isolation is demonstrated as a change upward from fine detritus gyttja
deposited during gradual lowering of water level to brownish coarse detritus gyttja
deposited after emergence. This is visible in Gärdorna from 244 cm upward, in
Labböleträsket 95 cm upward and in Söderby from 208 cm upward. According

574
to the shoreline displacement curve of Eronen et al. (2001) from the Tammisaari
– Perniö area the uplift rate was almost the same for the past 4000 years. According
to the threshold elevations of the study sites, the isolation of Söderbyträsket at 17.1
m took place cal 3800 BP, Gärdorna at 15 m cal 3330 BP and Labböleträsket at 12.3
m at cal 2730 years BP.
After isolation LOI increases steadily and sediment changes in Gärdorna and
in Söderbyträsket to lake mud in the uppermost part of the sediment. The peat
formation as a result of the filling in of the lake is demonstrated in Gärdorna,
Söderbyträsket and Labböleträsket in the topmost 160, 43 and 40 cm, respectively.

Lab.no. Sample depth 14C age BP Calc.age Relative area

(cm) (BC/AD; under probability
2 sigma) distribution
Gärdorna
Poz-7476 20 245 ± 30 1630-1680 AD 0.582
1763-1800 AD 0.270
Poz-7477 38 605 ± 30 1295-1405 AD 1.000
Poz-7478 84 1070 ± 30 935-1020 AD 0.780
895-925 AD 0.220

Labböleträsket
Poz-7466 49 (profile A) 1275 ± 25 670-780 AD 1.000
Poz-7467 96 (profile A) 3715 ± 30 2200-2030 BC 1.000
Poz-7468 195 (profile A) 4770 ± 35 3640-3515 BC 0.929
3423-3400 BC 0.034
3400-3380 BC 0.038
Poz-11247 56 (profile B) 1170 ± 30 775-900 AD 0.834
915-965 AD 0.166

Söderbyträsket
Poz-11232 68 955 ± 30 1025-1155 AD 1.000
Poz-11249 144 2910 ± 30 1210-1010 BC 0.990

Table 1. 14C-data from the studied lakes.

Pollen diagrams

Labböleträsket

The lowermost two metres in the pollen diagram are characterised by a high
proportion of arboreal taxa with Pinus (40 %), Betula (30 %) and Alnus (10 %)
as most common pollen types. Picea is present in less than 5 % proportions and

575
Ulmus and Quercus in 3 % proportions. Non-arboreal pollen occurs in less than 5 %
proportions (Fig. 4 and 5).
The lowermost radiocarbon dating at the level 195 cm gave the result 4770 ± 35
BP (Poz-7468), i.e. 3640-3515 cal BC (2 sigma). It is based on possible human activity,
especially an increase in Urtica may be connected to human presence. Indications
of human activity still remain weak.
From about 150 cm onwards, ca. 2900 BC as estimated from interpolating,
clear changes in tree proportions are likely to be connected to the clearing of
land. Clearest changes are detected in Pinus pollen percentages, which suddenly
decrease coincidently with an increase in Betula and Poaceae. These changes are
most probably connected to increasing open areas. This development culminates
at the 100-84 cm level where the first cultivated pollen types Hordeum and Secale
are detected. High values in charcoal particle concentration between 140-114 cm
(about 2760-2380 BC) indicate the increased use of fire. A radiocarbon dating from
the 96 cm level resulted in the date 2200-2030 cal BC (Poz-7467). Land clearance is
further confirmed by an increase in charcoal concentration between the 100 and the
85 cm level.
No direct evidence of human impact was found after the short cultivation
period that diminished from 84 cm upwards (ca. 1300 BC, as estimated from
interpolation). On the contrary Pinus pollen show an increasing trend reflecting
forest recovery. Forest recovery can further be detected in the increase in the total
boreal tree pollen, and decrease in the herb pollen percentage. At around 82-78 cm
(ca. 1080-785 BC as estimated from interpolation) Picea reaches permanently over 5
% of the total land pollen. This time estimate agrees well with Glückert (1976; 1996)
who has recognized the general spread of spruce in Kemiönsaari from two sites in
1070 ± 120 BC and 1280 ± 70 BC in non-corrected radiocarbon ages.
Continuous cultivation starts around the mire of Labböleträsket from 56 cm
upwards. From this point onwards Hordeum and Secale pollen are recorded
continuously and the overall intensity of human activity starts to increase steadily.
The radiocarbon dating from the 56 cm level resulted in 775-900 cal AD (Poz-11247).
More remarkable increase in the land use is detected between 50-40 cm, from about
1300 AD onwards when a clear increase in charcoal particle concentration indicates
increased fire intensity in the area. At the same time the Picea pollen percentage
decreases considerably and Juniperus pollen increases remarkably, most probably
as a result of grazing (Behre 1981; Hæggström 1990; Gaillard et al. 1992). At the
same time the overall openness of the landscape increases as demonstrated on the
increasing proportions of herb pollen. According to pollen data, intensity of land-
use practices remain about the preceding level from around 800/900 AD until the
topmost samples.

576
Gärdorna

At the lowest levels, between 300 cm and 252 cm, pollen of mixed pine-deciduous
forest dominate, Pinus, Betula and Alnus being the most common pollen types
(Fig. 6). Picea is present in low, ca. 5 % proportions. Populus, Corylus, Ulmus, Tilia,
and Quercus reach their maximum values, about 15 % of the total land pollen.
An increase in Picea pollen percentages is detected from around the 250 cm level
onwards. According to former radiocarbon dated time estimates for the invasion
of Picea (Glückert 1976) and the interpolated date from Labböleträsket, the robust
time estimate for the increase of Picea is most likely 1300-1000 BC.
From 252 cm until ca. 175 cm proportions of trees, Picea, Pinus, Betula and Alnus
dominate and remain somewhat stable. QM-trees show a decreasing trend. Grasses
and herbs consist 5-10 % of total pollen with Calluna, Juniperus, Salix, Cyperaceae,
Poaceae, Apiaceae, Filipendula and Artemisia as most abundant species. The first
weak cultivation activity is detected at the 197 cm level, where a single Hordeum
pollen was found. Other pollen types likely to be connected to human activity
include Plantago lanceolata, Rumex, Humulus and Urtica (Behre 1981; Hicks & Birks
1996; Maizer et al. 2006).
From 250 cm upwards (around 1150 BC) succession from lake to mire is clearly
demonstrated. This is also a phase when isolation from the Litorina Sea ends
and sediment changes from fine detritus gyttja to coarse detritus gyttja. Aquatic
Sparganium, Nymphaea, Nuphar and Potamogeton increase steadily and from about
175 upwards also proportions of lakeshore vegetation, Poaceae, Cyperaceae and
Equisetum increase reflecting the surrounding wetland pollen around the lake.
The infilling of the lake, visible from 160 cm upwards, is demonstrated in high
Sphagnum proportions. At this stage aquatic pollen types diminish rapidly and are
replaced by lakeshore vegetation such as Typha latifolia and Lythrum.
From around 120 cm onwards a clear change in tree proportions is demonstrated.
At this point Picea decreases dramatically at the same time as Pinus and these
are replaced by broad-leaved deciduous trees Betula and Alnus that increase
markedly. At the 110 cm level the values of conifers are lowest, and start to arise
again. From 120 cm onwards fire indicating Ericaceae including Calluna show a
marked increase, between 120-112 cm also a marked peak of Melampyrum was
recorded. On the basis of conifers being replaced by younger successional phase
broad-leaved trees and an increase in fire indicating Melampyrum, Calluna and
Ericaceae (Vuorela 1986; Gaillard et al.1992), it is most likely that these changes are
due to the deliberate burning of conifers. Further evidence is provided by single
occurrences of Caryophyllaceae, Humulus and Plantago lanceolata between 120 and
110 cm. According to linear interpolation, it can be estimated that the changes in
tree proportions started around 500 AD.

577
 At about 95 cm (ca. 840 AD) conifers reach their preceding levels, but most
remarkable changes are detected in Betula pollen percentages. It decreases very
rapidly together with Alnus. At this stage Juniperus, Artemisia and Filipendula show
a marked increase and single occurrences of Plantago lanceolata, Cichoriaceae and
Epilobium are recorded prior to the actual signs of cultivation, i.e. Secale pollen
at the 84 cm and 77 cm levels. This evidence from about 95 cm upwards can be
interpreted indicating grazing and mowing (Behre 1981; Gaillard et al. 1992; Hicks
& Birks 1996; Räsänen 2001).
Clear changes in the pollen composition caused by human activity take place
from 84 cm upwards. At this stage a clear decrease in Picea pollen values can
be seen. The first cultivated pollen type (Secale) appear in the 84 cm and 77 cm
level. According to radiocarbon dating from the 84 cm level (Poz-7478), the onset
of cultivation dates to 940-1020 cal AD. In this phase a general increase in non-
arboreal pollen is demonstrated, pollen types likely to be connected to land-use
include Cyperaceae, Cichoriaceae, Filipendula, Galium, Humulus/Cannabis -type and
Plantago lanceolata.
Continuous and gradually increasing cultivation is recorded from the 38 cm level
onwards, radiocarbon dated to 1300-1405 cal AD (Poz-7477). Secale and Hordeum
are recorded continuously. Increase in Poaceae and gradual decrease in tree pollen
is recorded indicating opening up of the landscape and grazing pressure. Other
pollen types indicative of grazing and mowing include Juniperus and Plantago
lanceolata. The occurrence of Plantago major/media and Urtica is probably connected
to footpath and more or less nitrogen-rich ruderal communities. An increase in
Rumex, Pteridium, Calluna and Secale is likely to be connected to slash-and-burn
cultivation (Behre 1981; Vuorela 1986; Gaillard et al. 1992; 1994).
The highest values are recorded at about 1630-1681 cal AD (Poz-7476), when the
pollen data show the strongest presence of apophyte and anthropochore including
Poaceae, Rumex, Secale, and Juniperus.

Söderbyträsket

At the lowest part of the diagram, between 200 and 150 cm, arboreal trees – Pinus,
Betula and Alnus – dominate in the area, reflecting the forested stage around the
lake and no signs of human impact were recorded. High values of broad-leaved
trees (Quercus, Populus, Tilia, Fraxinus, Ulmus, Corylus) were recorded, consisting
altogether ca. 20 % of land pollen. Picea is recorded continuously with a small, about
5 % proportion. An increase of Picea pollen percentages is clearly visible from about
150 cm upwards, reaching about 15 % of the total land pollen at around 145 cm.
As stated earlier, an increase in Picea takes place in Kemiönsaari around 1300-1000
BC. This agrees well with the radiocarbon dating from the mire of Söderbyträsket.

578
A concomitant decrease in percentages of deciduous trees is demonstrated. Non-
arboreal land pollen (NAP) is present with ca. 5 % proportion with Juniperus and
Poaceae as most abundant grasses and shrubs (Fig. 7).
The onset of the early stages of human activity with small-scale cultivation is
detected at the 144 cm level, according to radiocarbon dating at the Early Bronze
Age 1210-1010 cal BC (Poz-11249). At this level the first cultivated, surprisingly
Secale pollen was detected. Secale and Hordeum pollen are then recorded at the level
of 124, 122, 120, 108 and 78 cm levels, according to interpolation in the years 530
BC, 470 BC, 415 BC, 65 BC and 800 AD. Arboreal tree species however dominate,
QM-trees are decreasing steady and non-arboreal land pollen is present with ca.
5 % proportion. Even though signs of human activity remain weak until from
1210-1010 cal BC until 68 cm, pollen types indicative of human activity such as
Chenopodiaceae, Ericaceae, Calluna, Urtica, Rumex, and Plantago are present in
low but constant values indicating some human influence from the Early Bronze
Age (1210-1010 cal BC) onwards until the 68 cm level, where an increase in human
impact is recorded.
The uppermost part of the diagram from 68 cm upwards is characterised by a
rapidly increasing proportion of non-arboreal taxa. Increasing settlement indicators
at this stage include Juniperus, Rumex, Poaceae, and Cerealia as most common non-
arboreal pollen types. According to the radiocarbon dating result 1025-1155 cal AD
(Poz-11232) from the 68 cm level, this phase dates to the turn of the Viking Age and
the Crusade Period.
The local mire vegetation is strongly represented in the uppermost part of the
diagram, from 50 cm to the top and the change of deposition environment leads to
certain local pollen and spore types, such as Sphagnum, Apiaceae and Cyperaceae
being over-represented.

Discussion and conclusions

At Labböleträsket the first indication of settlement are detected around 3600 BC.
Settlement is reflected also in clear changes in tree proportions from 2900 BC
onwards. From about 2700 and 2000 BC charcoal particles evidence increased
fires in the area and a short-term cultivation period was found roughly between
2100-1300 BC. The short cultivation period found in Labböleträsket is similar with
former pollen analytical results from the mire of Ilsokärret in the northern part of
the island, where the earliest pollen of Cerealia indicated cultivation at the time
of the late Kiukainen Culture around 1660 cal BC, i.e. the Late Neolithic or the
Early Bronze Age. Further evidence of Bronze Age cultivation is from the southern

579
part of the island from Söderbyträsket where small-scale human activity with signs
of sporadic cultivation has been detected from around 1210-1010 cal BC onwards
continuing until the Middle Ages. Pollen results indicate slight human activity also
around Mossdalen – probably of grazing in the vicinity of the site from around
1380 cal BC onwards. According to this palaeoecological evidence, the general
conclusion can be made that, on Kemiönsaari, the earliest cultivation attempts date
to the Late Neolithic / Early Bronze Age.
In the northern part of the island, around the mire of Gärdorna, the earliest
cultivation event (the single Hordeum pollen) at the level of 87 cm may be connected
to settlement in the village of Makila in the Early Iron Age ca. 500-1 BC as indicated
by the archaeological material. In a former study of the mire of Ilsokärret about 8
km to the northeast, a clear phase of opening up of the landscape is recorded from
445 cal BC onwards.
Continuous cultivation and intensifying human activity from the Viking Age
onwards is well demonstrated around the mire of Labböleträsket from 775-900 cal
AD onwards, and human activity increases sharply in Ilsokärret too with continuous
rye cultivation from cal AD 920 onwards. Around Gärdorna signs of continuous
land-use also date to the Viking Age 940-1020 cal AD, remaining, however, weak
until 1300-1400 cal AD with only two rye occurrences recorded. According to several
Cannabis pollen, apparently also hemp was grown for fibre. Even if cultivation
events in the Gärdorna site in the Viking Age are weakly recorded, they are likely
to be connected to the radiocarbon dated cairns from the Viking Age.
From the Middle Ages onward results in all three study sites – Gärdorna,
Söderbyträsket and Labböleträsket – show increasing land-use. In Gärdorna this
dates to 1300-1405 cal AD, with continuous Secale and Hordeum pollen. Around
Söderbyträsket, land-use with sporadic cultivation was recorded as early as from
1200-1010 cal BC onwards, cultivation increases notably from 1025-1155 cal AD
onwards. From about 1300 AD onwards increased fire intensity in the area around
Labböleträsket is detected and at the same time the increase in Juniperus especially
indicates the existence of grazing along with cultivation.
When interpreting the results, the effect of the pollen source area has to be
considered. In general, the relationship between basin size and pollen source area is
well known; larger sedimentary basins collect pollen from larger areas than smaller
basins (Jacobson & Bradshaw 1981; Prentice 1985). In this study, the pollen samples
were all taken from the basins between 11-14 ha in size, and therefore, the basins
should be well suited for the construction of extra-local pollen, referring to pollen
input from within 20 m and several hundred meters of the basin (Prentice 1985).
The pollen source area is, however, in all the basins affected by the peat formation
as a result of the filling in of the lakes, demonstrated in Gärdorna, Söderbyträsket

580
and Labböleträsket in the topmost 160, 43 and 40 cm respectively. Lake sediments
and peat deposits differ as material for pollen analysis because substantially larger
amount of pollen originates from the surrounding of the landscape. In the pollen
profile of Gärdorna, the Early Iron Age settlement is only weakly reflected, even
when the archaeological dwelling site is situated in the immediate vicinity of the
mire of Gärdorna providing that the area has been in use. The weak reflection of the
Early Iron Age settlement may be explained by the effect of basin isolation and the
resulting change in deposition environment. In the mire of Gärdorna, the isolation
from the Litorina lagoon was a gradual process and probably ended around 1000
BC. The succession from lake to mire increased mire vegetation such as grasses and
Cyperaceae, which are likely to have caused a filtering effect together with trees,
now situated closer to the sampling site. Geographical factors and selection of the
sample site must also be considered. The dwelling site is situated east of Gärdorna,
the hill in between reaching about 55 m a.s.l., which may have effectively obstructed
the dispersion of pollen.
Defining the pollen source area is further complicated by the fact, that the
deposition velocity for individual taxa varies (Prentice 1985). Source radius of the
light pollen types could be 100 times larger than that of heavy pollen types (Sugita
1993). Pollen productivity estimates (Hjelle 1998; Broström et al. 2004) have shown
that Rumex acetose –type, Juniperus communis and Plantago lanceolata and Calluna
vulgaris have high pollen productivity estimates, suggesting that sporadic and low
percentages of those species need not necessarily be indicative of local pastoral
activity, but may indicate human activity on a regional scale. The interpretation of
the cultivated pollen types, Secale and Hordeum are also likely to become distorted
by the fact, that in relation to wind pollinated Secale, pollen of autogamous
Hordeum releases very little pollen into the air (Faegri & Iversen 1989). It has been
recognized, that pollen of Hordeum is poorly represented even in the vicinity of the
fields (Bakels 2000, Alenius et al. 2008).
All in all, the general picture provided by the five pollen analyses from Kemiön­
saari is the low intensity and irregularity of cultivation signals from the Bronze
Age until the Viking Age when all five sites studied were settled and cultivated.
The pollen analytical results from five mires do not support the theory of total lack
of human presence between 1-1000 AD when the archaeological artefacts are rare
or missing. According to pollen analytical results, the general conclusion can be
drawn that the Kemiönsaari was not totally left unsettled after the Bronze Age and
the Early Iron Age until the Viking Age. On the basis of the collected data it seems
reasonable to assume that small-scale human activity continued in different parts
of the island from the Bronze Age until the Viking Age. During this period pollen
records provide evidence of grazing, use of fire and weak signs of cultivation.

581
Palaeoecological evidence from the five mires studied indicates that the role of
cultivation was minor and, according to the use of fire, it could have been in a form
of occasional slash-and-burn cultivation in the area with lengthy interruptions. The
role of grazing also seems to have been of importance. On the basis of weak signs
of cultivation and settlement, it seems reasonable to assume that the population
size had remained low until the Viking Age. Cultivation seems to have gained
importance only from the Viking Age, around 900 AD onwards as demonstrated by
the rising numbers of cultivated pollen types and other anthropogenic indicators.
One explanation for the lack of archaeological evidence until the Viking Age could
be the sources of subsistence, which only have supported a small population
size and in turn left little archaeological evidence difficult to trace compared to
permanent and agriculturally based settlement from the Viking Age onwards.

Acknowledgements

This research was carried out at the Geological Survey of Finland and it was made
possible by financial support from the Finnish Cultural Foundation. I wish to
express my sincere thanks to Lic. Phil. Henrik Asplund for the fruitful co-operation
on the project. I also wish to thank Mr. Markku Moisanen and Mr. Ale Grunström
for assisting me with the fieldwork, Mrs. Erna Mäkeläinen for helping me with loss-
on-ignitions and Professor Matti Saarnisto for the comments on the manuscript.

References

Alenius, T., Mikkola, E., Ojala A.E.K. 2008. History of agriculture in Mikkeli Orijärvi, eastern Finland
as reflected by palynological and archaeological data. Vegetation history and archaeobotany 17 No.
2: 171-183.
Asplund, H. 1997. Kemiön suurpitäjän esihistoria. In: Suistoranta, Kari & Asplund, Henrik, Kemiön
suurpitäjän historia. Tammisaari: 213-282.
Asplund, H. 2000. Tid, människor och landskap. En bok om arkeologi i Pargas. Pargas hembygdsförenings
publikation nr 15.
Asplund, H. 2001. Landscapes, power and coerced decisions. A study on Iron Age archipelago and mainland
from the perspective of the Kemiönsaari area in SW Finland. Lisensiaatintutkimus. Turun yliopisto.
Kulttuurien tutkimuksen laitos / Arkeologia.
Asplund, H. & Vuorela, I. 1989. Settlement studies in Kemiö - archaeological problems and palyno-
logical evidence. Fennoscandia archaeologica IV: 67-79.
Bakels, C. C. 2000. Pollen diagrams and prehistoric fields: the case of Bronze Age Haarlem, the Nether­
lands. Review of Palaeobotany & Palynology 109: 205-218.
Behre, K.-E. 1981. Interpretation of anthropogenic indicators in pollen diagrams. Pollen et Spores
23:225-245.

582
Bengtsson, L. & Enell, M. 1986. Chemical analysis. In: Berglund, B. E. (ed.), Handbook of Holocene
Palaeoecology and Palaeohydrology. Wiley, Chichester: 423-451.
Bennett, K. D., Willis, K. J. 2001. Pollen. In: Smol, J. P., Birks, H. J. B. & Last, W. M. (eds.), Tracking
Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments, Volume 3. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht:
5- 32.
Berglund, B. E., Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M. 1986. Pollen analysis and pollen diagrams. In: Berglund, B.
E. (ed.), Handbook of Holocene Palaeoecology and Palaeohydrology. Wiley, Chichester: 455-485.
Björck, S. 1995. A review of the history of the Baltic Sea, 13.0-8.0 ka BP. Quaternary International. 27: 19-40.
Brostöm, A., Sugita, S., Gaillard, M.-J. 2004. Pollen productivity estimates for the reconstruction of
past vegetation cover in the cultural landscape of southern Sweden. The Holocene 14.3: 368-381.
Eronen, M., Glückert, G., Hatakka, L., van de Plassche, O., van der Plicht, J., Rantala, P. 2001. Rates of
Holocene isostatic uplift and relative sea-level lowering of the Baltic in SW Finland based on
studies of isolation contacts. Boreas 30: 17-30.
Fægri K. & Iversen, J. 1989. Textbook of pollen analysis, 4th edn, by Faegri, K., Kaland, P. E. & Krzy­winski,
K. Wiley, New York.
Gaillard, M.-J., Birks, H. J. B., Emanuelsson, U. & Berglund, B. E. 1992. Modern pollen/land-use rela-
tionships as an aid in the reconstruction of past land-uses and cultural landscapes: an example
from south Sweden. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 1: 3-17.
Gaillard, M.-J., Birks, H. J. B., Emanuelsson, U., Karlsson, S., Lagerås, P. & Olausson, D. 1994. Appli-
cation of Modern Pollen/land-use Relationships to the Interpretation of Pollen Diagrams –
Reconstructions of Land-use History in South Sweden, 3000-0 BP. Review of Palaeobotany and Paly­
nology 82: 47-74.
Glückert, G. 1976. Post-glacial shore-level displacement of the Baltic in SW Finland. Annales Academiae
Scientarum Fennicae Series A. III. Geologica-Geographica 118.
Glückert, G. 1996. Type region SF-b, coastal area of southwesten Finland. In: Berglund, B. E., Birks, H.
J. B., Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M. & Wright, H. E (eds), Palaeoecological Events During the Last 15 000
Years: Regional syntheses of Palaeoecological Studies of Lakes and Mires in Europe. Chichester. John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Hicks, S. & Birks, H. J. B. 1996. Numerical analysis of modern and fossil pollen spectra as a tool for
elucidating the nature of fine scale human activities in boreal areas. Vegetation History and Archaeo­
botany 5: 257-272.
Hjelle, K. L. 1998. Herb pollen representation in surface moss samples from mown meadows and
pastures in western Norway. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 7: 79-96.
Hæggström, C.-A. 1990. The influence of sheep and cattle grazing on wooded meadows in Åland, SW
Finland. Acta Botanica Fennica 141: 1-28.
Jacobson, G. L. Jr., Bradshaw, R. H. W. 1981. The selection of sites for paleovegetational studies. Qua­
ternary Research 16: 80-96.
Kääriäinen, E. 1963. Land uplift in Finland computed by the aid of precise levellings. Fennia 89.1.
Kielosto, S., Kukkonen, M., Stén, C.-G. & Backman, B. 1996. Hangon ja Perniön kartta-alueiden
maaperä. Summary: Quaternary deposits in the Hanko and Perniö map-sheet areas. Geological
map of Finland 1: 100 000. Explanation to the maps of quaternary deposits. Sheets 2011 and 2012.
Geological survey of Finland. Espoo.
Mazier, F., Galop, D., Brun, C. & Buttler, A. 2006. Modern pollen assemblages from grazed vegetation
in the western Pyrenees, France: a numerical tool for more precise reconstruction of past cul­tural
landscapes. The Holocene 16.1: 91-103.
Moore, P. D., Webb, J. A. & Collinson, M. E. 1991. Pollen analysis. Oxford.

583
Prentice, C. 1985. Pollen Representation, Source Area, and Basin Size: Toward a Unified Theory of
Pollen Analysis. Quaternary Research 23: 76-86.
Reille, M. 1992. Pollen et spores d’Europe et d’Afrique du nord. Laboratoire de botanique historique et
paly­nologie, Marseille.
Reille, M. 1995. Pollen et spores d’Europe et d’Afrique du nord. Supplement 1. Laboratoire de botanique hi-
storique et palynologie, Marseille.
Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C., Blackwell, B. G., Buck, C.
E., Burr, G., Cutler, K. P., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilder-
son, T. P., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F. G., Manning, S., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer,
R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J. &
Weyhen­meyer, C. E. 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 26-0 ka BP. Radio­
carbon 46:1029-1058.
Räsänen, S. 2001. Tracing and interpreting fine-scale human impact in northern Fennoscandia with
the aid of modern pollen analogues. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 10: 211-218.
Saarnisto, M. & Saarinen, T. 2001. Deglaciation chronology of the Scandinavian Ice Sheet from the
Lake Onega Basin to the Salpausselkä End Moraines. Global and Planetary Change 31: 387-405.
Stockmarr, J. 1971. Tablets with spores used in absolute pollen analysis. Pollen et Spores 13: 615-621.
Stuiver, M. & Reimer, P. J. 1993. Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration
program. Radiocarbon 35: 215-230.
Sugita, S. 1993. A Model of Pollen Source Area for an Entire Lake Surface. Quaternary Research 39: 249-
244.
Vuorela, I. 1986. Palynological and historical evidence of slash-and-burn cultivation in South Finland.
In: K.-E. Behre (ed.), Anthropogenic indicators in pollen diagrams. Rotterdam, Balkema: 53-64.
Vuorela, I. 1990. Pollenanalytiska studier. In: “Finska skären”. Studier i åbolänsk kulturhistoria utgivna av
Konstsamfundet till dess 50-årsjubileum 1990. Helsingfors: 115-132.
Whitlock, C. & Larsen, C. 2001. Charcoal as a fire proxy. In: Smol, J. P., Birks, H. J. B. & Last, W. M.
(eds.), Tracking Environmental Change Using Lake Sediments, Volume 2. Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers, Dordrecht: 75-97.

584